Jury Duty

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As for US vs Moylan, I'd rather suspect you are taking the decision out of context.

The context is that it was referenced in the middle of the wiki article on jury nullification in America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Court_rulings

The article lists several other decisions - sufficient to demonstrate that the courts have, indeed, ruled on it (contrary to che's assertion).

[Wezil]

I had to get out of jury duty once while at university out of town. My hometown wanted me on a jury.

I claimed hardship.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wrong.

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

That was the Fourth Circuit Court. Never made it up to the SCOTUS.

Sparf v United States in 1895 was the last time SCOTUS dealt with the issue, and only to rule that judge was not required to inform juries of their right to nullify. That would imply that the courts recognize such a right exists, but it isn't explicitly stated. In any event, once I stated my intention to nullify, the prosecution could certainly use any of its unlimited peremptory bumps regardless of what the judge has to do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chegitz,

This does bring up an interesting point. If you believe drug laws are wrong/immoral (as I do, and suspect you also do), would not the "right" action be to try to get picked for the jury, so as to ensure that someone who committed a victimless crime did not wind up in prison?

Yes, but I was under oath to answer truthfully. I'm not about to perjure myself.

On the other hand, shouldn't jury trials be based solely upon the law? I'm not sure that I want a panel of basically ignorant ****s being able to nullify any law they disagree with. Granted, in some cases, it might turn out well, but it seems to me that nullification should be based on a very strict Constitution limiting federal power, and a judiciary committed to upholding those limitations. We have half of that in place (the Constitution, not the judiciary), but either way, I think that prohibiting attorneys for arguing for nullification is probably proper, if we are committed to rule of law.

The classic counter argument would be juries nullifying the conviction of murderers who murder acceptable people, such as Southern whited tried for murdering Black people or Westerners tried for murdering Wobblies. Truth is, though, all aspects of the criminal justice system can be abused. That isn't a reason to abolish it. Using the same standard we'd have to abolish everything that can be abused.

[TheStinger]

Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can't apply them when on a Jury. You are asked to decide whether or not soemone is guilty on the facts and the law. You can do that irrespective of your own views. In fact isn't that the point of a Jury.

[Jon Miller]

I have been called to be on the jury 3 times, all 3 times I have lived somewhere else (Due to education).

JM

[Lancer]

I too have thrice been on a jury but not once have I been allowed to throw the switch.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chegitz,

This does bring up an interesting point. If you believe drug laws are wrong/immoral (as I do, and suspect you also do), would not the "right" action be to try to get picked for the jury, so as to ensure that someone who committed a victimless crime did not wind up in prison?

Good point. I got out of jury duty when the prosecuter asked if anyone was ever treated unfairly by the police (or something like that). I said that I had been, which was the truth.

I feel bad sometimes because of that, but I had something better to do than jury duty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can't apply them when on a Jury. You are asked to decide whether or not soemone is guilty on the facts and the law. You can do that irrespective of your own views. In fact isn't that the point of a Jury.

But the lawyers get to pick the jurers with the judge's approval in our country.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Which is why courts dont want jurors opposed to the drug war, they've effectively taken away the jury's power to nullify their laws by selecting people who dont understand their role as jurors. The courts wont even allow defenses to argue for nullification. This is the ultimate power we have over government and its being whittled away.

No. It's because people who oppose drug laws are on crack.

[Donegeal]

I never get picked for jury duty.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But the lawyers get to pick the jurers with the judge's approval in our country.

well thats the problem then. Unless you have knowledge of the case then in most cases it should be random

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by TheStinger


well thats the problem then. Unless you have knowledge of the case then in most cases it should be random

It's suppose to eliminate prejudice jurers, but I agree with you that someone who holds a minority opinion is no more prejudice than someone who isn't. I think what it does is tend to make jurers more like minded and therefore they will tend to agree more often.

[TheStinger]

Jury's are supposed to be a jury of your peers, by introducing widescale selection you are saying it is a Jury of you peers if we think they are the right ones.

I'm not saying it's never approprite to have some form of Jury selection but not to the extent that appears ( and I admit this is from news reports so might not be entriley accurate) to be the case in the US.

BTW is jury selection common in all US states or just some

[Ben Kenobi]

Doneagal, do you think they have some latent bias against servicemen in law enforcement?