[Jury Nullification] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust
Until the wealthy and powerful are held to account, why punish your fellow everyday citizens? Use your brain. Decide if what they’re charging people with is suppression or actually keeping society safe.
When those prosecutors start losing these cases, maybe they will start to rethink who they are focusing on.
they choose jurors specifically that wont “jury nullification” i know quite a few people who were chosen on the basis: if you dont question thier authority(the ones choosing jurors), they love the pushovers, the retirees and govt workers, because they know they have nothing else to do".
other issues if the judges ego is not stroked: you’re trying to get out of jury duty, they might force you to be on one regardless. i know subreddit and a forum that has a whole discussion around jury duty for each state/city. apparently some states are so desperate for jurors, they ignore most excuses.
If you find yourself on jury duty in a very specific case (you know which one) you should know about this but pretend like you don’t.
Conversely, it’s a great way of getting out of jury duty if you mention it during jury pool selection in criminal cases - the prosecution will kick you out as quickly as possible. It’s why I haven’t served on a jury for over thirty years.
There’s miscarriages of justice every day in this country. We need this attitude in cases where they’re trying someone for no charge other than resisting arrest just as much as that specific case.
in the courts thats true, like what is the circumstances of the accused, "the city targetting AA people preferentially and prosecuting them in quick sucession, like with luigi yes he isnt AA, but hes part of the class that challenged the ruling class. compared to a white person which they almost always become to careful not to charge them too quickly. in many cases the courts often try try to charge people on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony.
But remember if you’re on jury selection, you don’t know what jury nullification is.
you can say you show bias towards the case, by citing any reasons, you will get strike from the juror pool most of the time .additionally, they dont even pay you well for your time, you can easily lose alot money a day for not working your job, in alot of places they can pay you a pittance of 5-15/day, in cali its 15 only a day. theres also the issue that your job will not look kindly for missing a lot of days.(despite what the law says the employee cant retaliate) they can do other things.
You are meant to “nullify” silently.
Apparently you can get in trouble for lying on those questionnaires
Who would know that you lied? There’s a reason “I do not recall” is a popular answer in court; The courts can’t prove that you remember something, because it’s entirely subjective. Without being mind readers, there’s no way for them to prove that you know something.
I guess it depends how far they wanted to go to investigate you. Theoretically they could try to find your social media history, etc.
Remember that lie detectors are absolute bullshit pseudoscience, just like trained drug dogs.
To elaborate for anyone reading this who doesn’t know:
Dogs are really good at noticing emotion in humans, better than they are at noticing the scent of contraband. When an officer wants a dog to alert, the dog picks up on it and alerts, even when there’s nothing there.
There was even a study where they would have a dog try to find out which packages had drugs in. When the officer was fooled, the dog was significantly more likely to be fooled too than when trying to fool only the dog. The officers responded by refusing to continue the experiment.
I’m not doubting you, in fact I really, really want to believe you, but do you happen to have any links? It sucks that proof doesn’t change minds online, but that sounds like good reading regardless
I learned this from the paw patrol copaganda video on youtube, which does site sources, so you can go from there.
You could have read about it the day after getting elected to the jury so…
Sure. Good luck proving it.
Unpopular take but despite it being a popular thing, we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can. Every study ever has shown that people who know about jury nullification tend to dismiss evidence more often, and are more easily deceived by a sympathetic/ non-sympathetic looking defendant. It’s not even a law, it’s the result of the fact juries can’t be prosecuted for their decisions so really they can do whatever they want. This is enough to know that technically you can “nullify the law”. That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
Saying the law doesn’t actually apply despite the person having done the thing the law says not to do is very different from saying the punishment should be nil. This could also keep you from ever serving on a jury and telling others about this in certain circumstances could be a crime. All the legal minds who looked into this agree it should still remain a thing, but it shouldn’t be told to jurors explicitly. When you serve you swear to uphold the law, so it’s tricky to nullify without
purgeryperjury except for very very special cases.This is not a good YSK, you should understand what the law is as a juror. You could in theory reword this entire post without actually using the term and that would probably be helpful, but super complicated to write.
Esit: I’m team Luigi (in mario kart of course)
I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.
My comment does not say jury nullification shouldn’t exist/be allowed. It says the opposite.
Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.
Yeah, there’s a reason the juror box has been referred to as the third box of liberty.
The four boxes of liberty are a 19th century concept. They are the soap box, (making your disagreement publicly known, and trying to gather others who agree), ballot box, (voting out corrupt officials), juror box, (refusing to convict for unjust laws), and lastly the ammo box. Typically used in that order.
Basically, protest starts by voicing your disagreement. That’s your soap box. You make your disagreement publicly heard, and try to gather others who also disagree with the government. When you have enough people gathered together, it becomes a peaceful protest.
But when that doesn’t work, You vote for representatives that will be able to make decisions you agree with. The hope is that they’ll enact change for the better once they’re in office. Basically, get rid of the corrupt officials who are working against the public.
Third, if the government has enacted laws you disagree with (because you’re not being represented, and they have ignored your peaceful protests), then you move on to the jury box. Refuse to convict when you believe the justice system is unjust.
Lastly, if the government still refuses to change and is continuing to prosecute people for unjust laws (for instance, secret police bypassing the jury box by skipping a fair trial) then you move onto the ammo box as a form of protest. Because if the government has refused to allow for peaceful protest via the first three boxes, then that only leaves the fourth box.
As the government becomes more and more tyrannical, you start using more and more of your boxes. Hopefully you never need to reach for the fourth box.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
The guilty form of nullification is much weaker. A judge can overrule the jury. The case could be appealed.
In contrast, a non-guilty verdict is final, there is no way overturn it and there is no appeals.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
There’s a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.
Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection
IANAL, but it sounds like a “JNOV” could allow the judge to basically throw out a jury decision, regardless of what it is. It’s just that they almost never use it because, as long as the jury hasn’t been compromised or manipulated in some way, they respect the jury system.
IMO almost everyone (who knows about lemmy) knows about jury nullification. But the real risk people should know about is this JNOV ruling. I could envision a Trump appointed judge trying to use it nefariously in the near future.
I could envision a Trump appointed judge trying to use it nefariously in the near future.
Afiak, that is weaker than a non-guilty verdict from the jury. If a judge overruling a jury, that decision itself can be appealed and…
looks at composition of the supreme court
oh… shit… nvm… 👀
The number of people ITT that want to find some reason they can’t have an impact by quoting obscure legal theorizing is pretty wild to me.
Not sure if you’re including me in that group given that I never said that.
My assumption is that your goal is to make people aware of our jury system as it relates to the current political climate. If so, we have the same goal 👍.
so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.
Assuming you meant perjury, it is not tricky in the slightest. You vote your conscience and don’t say something stupid like “I lied during voire dire, nyah ah ahhh!”.
we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can.
There is an ongoing shift towards fascism, and at least for now the courts still have power over whether or not people get to walk free.
So there is more to it than your letting on. We’re gonna see cases of people who have done illegal things because the fascists in power decided to make existence defacto illegal for people.
An example of this is the bans on transgender people from using bathrooms other than their assigned sex. If I’m ever a juror on a case like that, I’m fucking voting not guilty, and everybody else should too.
Or it will be used to let fascists off, because their supporters will vote fucking not guilty and say that everyone else should too.
Yeah, that’s why you don’t share this with fascists.
And for the most part, it’s generally not the case that fascists find themselves in the hot seat, because their buddies are cops, or themselves are cops. The rule of law was never truly applied to them in the first place.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
This doesn’t seem right… My understanding of jury nullification is that it ends with the charges being dismissed. I didn’t think it went both ways. Like, I don’t think a jury can say, “we know there isn’t evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway.”
They’re saying that a defendant can be convicted with minimal or circumstantial evidence. Because, much like they can decide the law shouldn’t apply when they think the defendant did it, they can decide the defendant is guilty even if the evidence doesn’t say that.
Ok… But is that really “jury nullification”? The word “nullify” implies that they are disagreeing with the law, so they choose not to enforce it. That can only go one way in this situation.
Also, the judge would have to agree, as they have the authority to forego the jury verdict from guilty to not guilty (but not vice versa).
It’s by no means a perfect system, but what is?
Like, I don’t think a jury can say, “we know there isn’t evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway.”
The can, but if the judge isn’t a total douche, they would just overrule the jury. Not to mention, it could be appealed. The guilty version of nullification is much weaker.
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.
IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.
There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
And what if the law is “trans people cannot exist”?
That too far-fetched for you (it really shouldn’t be at this point but whatever), then what if you were on a jury in the south during Jim Crow?
It’s about disagreeing with patently unjust laws.
Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.
And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.
That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get
912 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
No, it can often be a good reason. I disagree with laws that would make it illegal for trans people to use their preferred bathroom. They punish women for not being feminine enough, it forcibly outs trans people. It’s dangerous and stupid.
Anybody who votes not guilty in such a case is right to do so.
I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).
A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction
Absolutely. Much of the time charges get dropped all together when there’s a hung jury, because it isn’t worth the effort to risk another hung jury.
And it’s not like the charges are dropped if jury nullification takes place.
Both sides can appeal the decision and when it gets to an appeals judge they will likely look at the case and say ‘yea, this should be tried again’
Is an appealing an innocent verdict not double jeopardy?
I don’t know what double jeopardy is.
You cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
It’s also worth knowing how to do it, as it isn’t exactly straightforward.
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
If make it known that you know about it, or you are intentionally doing it, you could face legal issues.
they can threaten you, but they cant force you to choose a verdict other than what the prosecutors want, which is choosing not-guilty in despite of the evidence.
this is in light of Luigi Mangione’s recent court appearance isn’t it?
Nope.
You should be applying this to all juries you serve on. Accept those summonses. Get on those juries and use your brains.
The President has unlimited pardon powers, and so do juries.
President is one person. Juries are 12 people (at minimum, for criminal trials). Verdicts have to be unanimous. If theres 11 not guolty and 1 guilty, the prosecution can repeat the trials indefinitely (until a judge dismisses it with prejudice)
Yep.
You should be applying this to all juries you serve on. Accept those summonses. Get on those juries and use your brains.
Nah, I’m good lol
Not sure why you’re trying to give up your rights, but ok.
I have the right to do a lot of things which would never come up.
I can and should review jury procedures when and if they call on me, but generally I do side with the laws. Like, as a general rule, murderers should go to prison, for example.
The law also sent Rosa Parks to jail.
Rosa Parks didn’t shoot the bus driver three times in the back with an unregistered firearm.
Did you miss my admonition to use your brain? Vote your conscience. You are a human who can make decisions.
Okay, but with Luigi, it was self defense.
Don’t engage. Low effort edge troll.
Ya’ll worship murder but I’m the Edgelord, ok.
Whats that? Your favorite murderer is going to prison? Womp Womp. How will you ever get by without him?
I will also warn that you are likely committing perjury when they ask at the jury if they have an inability or refusal to follow the instructions or the law of the judge. Now this is difficult to prove, but it’s not something risk free
You’d think so, but no. You cannot be punished as a juror for voting your conscience. So long as you don’t say “I intentionally lied during voir dire to sabotage due process” they cannot even ask you why you voted the way you did unless you volunteer for questions afterwards.
You’d be surprised at how stupid people can be. Obviously we’re all dancing around one case and I assure the members of that jury will be pestered about it for a long time after
I am actually not dancing around any case. I believe people should be aware of this in EVERY CASE as long as the rule of law is being unequally applied to us.
So the remedy to a system which applies the law unequally is to have juries apply the law unequally?
If the state acts in bad faith, why should the citizenry respond with good faith?
Obviously the citizenry should push back on a corrupt state, but that doesn’t mean that jurors should just make up the law because they like the defendant.
I didn’t say to make up laws. No one I have seen in this thread said to make up laws. Not clear on what you are talking about.
Yeah, people can be stupid, but they can be less stupid if they know the things they should know. Hence this post.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find any lemmy users who did not already know about Jury Nullification, sadly however most users seem to have a poor understanding of it. As though Juries should just make up the law for cases they hear based on the vibe of the case.
Here again you discuss making up laws. That isn’t what this is.
That is not actually true.
The right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the accused by the constitution. You are empowered by that constitution. You owe a constitutional duty to the accused; not to the court, judge, or government.
The law is not limited to the acts of Congress and the States that the defendant is accused of violating. When the judge asks if you can follow the law, you are free to remember that the "Constitution is part of that law.* Where legislated law is in conflict with your constitutional responsibulity, your responsibility supersedes that legislation entirely.
If you actually believe that the person your judging does not deserve punishment, then this is a risk that you should be willing to take.
I think the judge can override the jury though, right? Ianal, but I thought the judge could do that for any case.
The judge cannot declare someone guilty if the berson pleads innocent. The judge can say not guilty and dismiss a case.
That’s good to know if you live in
NY.the area he’s being tried.Edit: I realized that I don’t know where he’s being tried.
The judge cannot. They can prejudice the jury severely through unequal treatment of evidence, witnesses, and through clearly showing their bias at trial, which in practice can affect the verdict dramatically. On the other hand, doing that makes it a lot easier to overturn the verdict on appeal.
The case which unequivocally established the right of juries to countermand the judge was fucking wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel’s_Case
The judge was putting William Penn and William Mead on trial for leading an unlawful religious assembly. The jury found the defendants, basically, guilty of “speaking,” but not of the crime they had been accused of. The judge blew his stack and ordered the defendants to be tied up (?) and the jury imprisoned without food, water, or heat. After two days with no food, the jury returned, and amended their verdict to “not guilty.” The judge got pissed again, ordered the jury to be fined (?) instead, and one of the jurors said he definitely wasn’t paying that, and appealed the whole judgement. The trial involved some physical violence in the courtroom when the judge would order something to happen and the person involved would tell the judge to fuck off and then resist the people who came in to try to enforce the ruling.
The appeals court sided with the jury. People remember Bushel (the juror) and his name is remembered as linked with the principle of law, and all people remember about the judge was that he was an asshole.
The irony is, despite there being a plaque celebrating it in the old bailey, people have been arrested for holding signs directly quoting that plaque.
Good for her. Inspiring person. And I’m so happy she wasn’t prosecuted in the end.
The natural tendency of any government is towards tyranny. They’re not indomitable, though, and so sometimes the people fight their way a little more towards justice.
Inevitably, when the pendulum swings back, it develops that talking about the old justice-type of government that somebody won with their struggle, is punishable severely at the hands of the new government, which is simultaneously completely happy to be claiming for itself the mandate of the old government. When the old government wasn’t even all that “good,” just a little better than the norm in some respects.
That’s hilarious, the jury wasn’t fucking around.
UK, the year 1670- I wonder if the US uses that law since we were under the crown at the time? Did we inherit any laws from before we claimed independence? I never thought about that.
We adopted a lot of the English legal system since a lot of the same courts were still operating before, during and after the revolution. We just wrote a bunch more stuff down (since for some reason even really important stuff in English law is still this kind of “everyone knows it’s that way” weird type of oral history system.) We also modified certain aspects in a more democratic spirit. But a lot of the bedrock, things like precedent, judges, juries, appeals, habeas corpus, and so on, comes from that system, so Bushel’s Case is still relevant in terms of talking about the nature of the judge/jury relationship.
We adopted a lot of the English legal system since a lot of the same courts were still operating before,
Except Louisiana. Louisiana is instead gifted with laws from Napoleonic France.
That makes sense, could you elaborate some of the big differences? I had no idea.
- “Case law,” meaning deciding court cases by referring to the results of previous cases, is much less important in Louisiana. Courts of appeals and the Louisiana Supreme Court are more liable to go against previous precedents than they might be in common law states.
- A lot more basic stuff in Louisiana is written into law statutes. The Louisiana constitution was completely rewritten in the 1970s, but today it is still the size of one of those old fashioned phone books.
- Louisiana has parishes instead of counties.
- In a criminal case, the Louisiana constitution does not guarantee defendants the right to trial by jury. That’s an English law tradition thing, not French (or “continental European”). Louisiana criminal defendants do get a right to jury guaranteed by the US constitution and by Louisiana statutes.
- Louisiana is (basically) the only state in the Union that doesn’t require a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases. They got partially overruled by the feds on this recently, though.
- Louisiana does not participate in the Multistate Bar Exam. The Louisiana bar exam is the longest one to sit in the Union.
- You cannot disinherit any of your children. All children are entitled to a minimum fractional share of your estate. This is a reform actually from Napoleon, getting rid of “primogeniture” that was all the rage in England.
- Louisiana has a thing called “usufruct” that could be used to, say, let your spouse keep using your assets after you die (and your assets were force-inherited to your children).
- The governor of Louisiana is required to recite the oath of office twice, in English and French.
Very interesting, thank you.
