Jurors cannot be punished for their decison either “guilty” or “not guilty”, no matter if the decision was the “right” or “wrong” decison.
A verdict of “not guilty” cannot be appealed nor overturned.
A person cannot be tried for the same criminal act more than once. Famously known as the “No Double Jeopardy” clause. (although: according to the law, mistrials / hung juries don’t count as a trial for the purposes of “No Double Jeopardy”)
Interpret these facts however you will. wink wink, nudge nudge
Can we crowd source ads around Manhattan and have people with bullhorns on the sidewalks around the court entrances announcing “Jury Nullification is your right!”?
Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:
Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way
And
No double jeopardy.
You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system
It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.
The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.
Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.
True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.
something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.
A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.
In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.
Key facts about Jury Trials:
Jurors cannot be punished for their decison either “guilty” or “not guilty”, no matter if the decision was the “right” or “wrong” decison.
A verdict of “not guilty” cannot be appealed nor overturned.
A person cannot be tried for the same criminal act more than once. Famously known as the “No Double Jeopardy” clause. (although: according to the law, mistrials / hung juries don’t count as a trial for the purposes of “No Double Jeopardy”)
Interpret these facts however you will. wink wink, nudge nudge
Also, don’t tell anyone you know that, or you’re not gonna be on any jury.
cough cough ^jury ^nullification cough
Sorry, there must be something in the air today.
Can we crowd source ads around Manhattan and have people with bullhorns on the sidewalks around the court entrances announcing “Jury Nullification is your right!”?
Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:
Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way
And
No double jeopardy.
You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system
It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.
The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.
Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.
We have a fair justice system?
Theoretically. The structure is setup for one, it’s the individuals that fuck it up. As usual.
Fuck the judges, corrupt
True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.
A judge can overrule a jury if they think the jury judged the law rather than the defendant, however.
Only for a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict can’t be overrode or appealed.
That’s why they hate juries knowing about it so much
Well, according to citizens united, money = speech.
Jury nullification is one way to overturn unfair laws.
If a bunch of juries refuse to play ball, prosecutors will stop trying the cases. They think convictions are the only way to win reelection.
I’m an advocate for homeless people. I 100% support jury nullification.
I mean, we’d probably want to keep murder illegal. It’s just this specific murder we don’t take issue with.
something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.
Different.
A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.
In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.