Jury Duty

[seminole97]

There are bad apples in every profession. I'm just glad I've never personally worked with nor supervised any.

Is ‘hombre’ Spanish for apple?

“The entire police force for a Mexican town has been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murder of a mayoral candidate.
Twenty eight officers in Ocampo, Michoacan, in western Mexico have been taken in for questioning by the police’s internal affairs department.”

 

[KitingHigh]

I don't know why you're even asking me a question since I'm but, I'll answer your question.

I've never had to testify against another cop in my 20+ years. Nor have I ever witnessed another cop commit a crime which includes committing the crime of perjury. Therefore, I've never had to refute anything.

There are bad apples in every profession. I'm just glad I've never personally worked with nor supervised any.

It's extremely dangerous to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush based up personal experiences or perceptions.

I already responded to this but some mod deleted it.

I'll just ask you this and hopefully ft doesn't get the same treatment.

If you were involved with a case and knew the defendent was guilty, but he would get off on an appeal because of a technicality; and the arresting officer lied to remove that technicality. Would you, if asked, testify for the officer or the defense?

Would you lie?

Would you stand aside and let the lie be?

Or would you be honest even if it meant the guy you think guilty goes free?

 

[kc78]

I think our system would be better fit by allowing people to apply to be on juries or at least express interest. Nobody needs the person on the jury who just wants to get it over with so they can leave. That person is just going to vote whichever way gets them out quicker.

We also need to be aware of people who would try to use the jury system as both a weapon (Say a white supremacist who wants on a jury so they can vote all people of color guilty) or as an activist who would do the opposite. We need people who both understand the law, but also recognize that defendants are people and human beings, who are aware of their internal biases and try to separate themselves from them.

Unfortunately, I think that system is impossible in reality.

 

[Fijimn]

I think our system would be better fit by allowing people to apply to be on juries or at least express interest. Nobody needs the person on the jury who just wants to get it over with so they can leave. That person is just going to vote whichever way gets them out quicker.

We also need to be aware of people who would try to use the jury system as both a weapon (Say a white supremacist who wants on a jury so they can vote all people of color guilty) or as an activist who would do the opposite. We need people who both understand the law, but also recognize that defendants are people and human beings, who are aware of their internal biases and try to separate themselves from them.

Unfortunately, I think that system is impossible in reality.

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

 

[funksouljon]

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

That actually is something I was thinking about when it comes to an educated jury. They would begin to consider they understand the law and their interpretation would impact the application. They might ignore directions on "I know best" but at the same time they would be less likely to be swayed by playing on ignorance.

 

[OrlandNole]

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

How can they make a determination of innocence or guilt without understanding the law?

 

[seminole97]

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

Jury nullification is intended to be a power of the people.
Peter Zenger helped spark our revolution and efforts to deny jury trials were among the causes cited in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Finance85]

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

I agree with credibility of witness and finder of fact. I disagree that jurors don't need to understand the law. Why are the given the law if they aren't required to understand it? Juries don't come back with verdicts saying they believed a witness or decided on this fact or that fact. They come back with guilty or not in a criminal case, and percentage of fault in a civil case.

 

[Fijimn]

Understand was not the correct term of art. What I am suggesting is that juries should not come to the box with an what they think the law is. Juries are given the law, i.e., reasonably prudent person standard in a negligence case. Or in a criminal matter (generally) intentional is the mens rea. And they apply the facts to the law that is given to them.

The suggestion of having professional juries can lead to a jury of part-time legal scholars that "know the law," or even worse "know what the law should be." and that can be very dangerous.

 

[Finance85]

Understand was not the correct term of art. What I am suggesting is that juries should not come to the box with an what they think the law is. Juries are given the law, i.e., reasonably prudent person standard in a negligence case. Or in a criminal matter (generally) intentional is the mens rea. And they apply the facts to the law that is given to them.

The suggestion of having professional juries can lead to a jury of part-time legal scholars that "know the law," or even worse "know what the law should be." and that can be very dangerous.

That makes better sense. Thanks, Fij.

 

[KitingHigh]

It is not the juries job to understand the law. They are given the law, standards, elements. It’s there job to judge the credibility of the witness and be a fact finder

I disagree.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Jury nullification has a long history.

Would you convict someone of harboring a fugitive slave if the facts proved it and the law said you should?

 

[Fijimn]

I disagree.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Jury nullification has a long history.

Would you convict someone of harboring a fugitive slave if the facts proved it and the law said you should?

Jury nullification is a very dangerous and not democratic...it is 6 or 12 people that decide if a law is not fair. And most of the time, the believe that the law is "unfair" or not "right" is based the jurors own bias. You find it quite often in DUI/DWI cases - where several people in the box think that the law is unfair and driving sightly impaired is fine. However, that's generally not the believe/understanding of the republic. Laws should be changed or stricken through the democratic processes.....not through 12 people picked off the street.

 

[KitingHigh]

Jury nullification is a very dangerous and not democratic...it is 6 or 12 people that decide if a law is not fair. And most of the time, the believe that the law is "unfair" or not "right" is based the jurors own bias. You find it quite often in DUI/DWI cases - where several people in the box think that the law is unfair and driving sightly impaired is fine. However, that's generally not the believe/understanding of the republic. Laws should be changed or stricken through the democratic processes.....not through 12 people picked off the street.

Again, I ask. If you were on the jury and you believed the law truly unjust. Would you vote to ruin someone's life or would you vote to ruin their life even though you knew in your heart that it was wrong?

 

[Fijimn]

Again, I ask. If you were on the jury and you believed the law truly unjust. Would you vote to ruin someone's life or would you vote to ruin their life even though you knew in your heart that it was wrong?

And, again, the perception of what is unjust is individualized. And suggesting that a law (statute or common law) should be nullified based on an individual belief is a very dangerous road. In my experience, a person suggests jury nullification for self-interest - DUI law, income tax and property tax law -- but they try to layer it in some kind of offense to society at large...which is BS.

If we go to the absurd extremes -- which people like to do on the interwebz -- yes, laws that reduce people to chattel are unjust and thankfully not on our books.

To bring the discussion into the realm of an adult discussion and pertinent to today's laws, if a baker could be fined for not baking a cake for segment of our population, I may think that to be unjust...but I would apply the facts to the law and decide accordingly. Leaving the changing of the law to our democratic republic form of government -- petition and redress.

 

[KitingHigh]

And, again, the perception of what is unjust is individualized. And suggesting that a law (statute or common law) should be nullified based on an individual belief is a very dangerous road. In my experience, a person suggests jury nullification for self-interest - DUI law, income tax and property tax law -- but they try to layer it in some kind of offense to society at large...which is BS.

If we go to the absurd extremes -- which people like to do on the interwebz -- yes, laws that reduce people to chattel are unjust and thankfully not on our books.

To bring the discussion into the realm of an adult discussion and pertinent to today's laws, if a baker could be fined for not baking a cake for segment of our population, I may think that to be unjust...but I would apply the facts to the law and decide accordingly. Leaving the changing of the law to our democratic republic form of government -- petition and redress.

The people that killed the Jews in Germany felt the same way.

Those that ignore history tend to repeat it.

And it's funny that you use DUI as an example because that happens to be one of the most unjust and unconstitutional applications of law in existence today.

Jury nullification in the US was brought to prominence due to cases involving slavery.

Do you think those jurors were wrong to not send the slave to the shipping post? Try to answer yes or no since you want to deal in absolutes. The facts and the law said they should have done so.

 

[Fijimn]

The people that killed the Jews in hermany felt the same way.

Those that ignore history tend to repeat it.

And it's funny that you use DUI as an example because that happens to be one of the most unjust and unconstitutional applications of law in existence today.

Jury nullification in the US was brought to prominence due to cases involving slavery.

Do you think those jurors were wrong to not send the slave to the shipping post? Try to answer yes or no since you want to deal in absolutes. The facts and the law said they should have done so.

Again - this is not accurate. You believe you were wronged at some point in time. That's fine. But it is not the most unjust and unconstitutional application of the law. And at no point in my posts is there an absolutism and I explained my view of laws reducing people to chattel. Try to reading and comprehending before responding...it makes this much more fluid.

 

[seminole97]

Jury nullification is a very dangerous and not democratic...it is 6 or 12 people that decide if a law is not fair. And most of the time, the believe that the law is "unfair" or not "right" is based the jurors own bias. You find it quite often in DUI/DWI cases - where several people in the box think that the law is unfair and driving sightly impaired is fine. However, that's generally not the believe/understanding of the republic. Laws should be changed or stricken through the democratic processes.....not through 12 people picked off the street.

In other words, you’re going to convict Peter Zenger, because ‘that’s the law’.

America was quite literally founded on the opposite of what you’re espousing here. Timely conversation.

 

[Fijimn]

In other words, you’re going to convict Peter Zenger, because ‘that’s the law’.

America was quite literally founded on the opposite of what you’re espousing here. Timely conversation.

Can you point me to the section of the Constitution where I find jury nullification?

 

[KitingHigh]

Can you point me to the section of the Constitution where I find jury nullification?

No, but I can give you some really good examples of it.

 

[KitingHigh]

Again - this is not accurate. You believe you were wronged at some point in time. That's fine. But it is not the most unjust and unconstitutional application of the law. And at no point in my posts is there an absolutism and I explained my view of laws reducing people to chattel. Try to reading and comprehending before responding...it makes this much more fluid.

I absolutely was wronged. I won't deny that. It doesn't change the facts.

Answer my question if you can.

Would you have sent an escaped slave to the whipping post? That was the law and those were the facts. If you believe the jury should only judge the facts and apply the law then the answer is yes. I couldn't bring myself to do that personally..

 

[seminole97]

Can you point me to the section of the Constitution where I find jury nullification?

6th amendment guarantees jury trials.
None of the contemporaries to the passage of that legislation shared your confusion about the power of juries. I’m on my phone, so you can google the Founders and jury nullification to enlighten yourself on this subject.
Jury nullification is a check in the hands of the people against unjust laws/prosecution. It has long been understood as such.

 

[kc78]

Just because a law can be used to destroy someone's life doesn't mean that it always should be used. I think it's completely fair for jurors to take that into consideration as to whether applying a law just because it's on the books should be done. I don't want to live in a country, as much as many would have us do, where we remove the humanity of people being charged with offenses.

I take great offense anytime my government tells me that they're doing something terribly unjust because it's the law, end of story. Ok, I'll work to change the law, but that takes time. In the meantime I'll do what I can within my power to convince those who have the authority to use or ignore that law to choose the ethical, just, and moral choice every time.

 

[Fijimn]

I absolutely was wronged. I won't deny that. It doesn't change the facts.

Answer my question if you can.

Would you have sent an escaped slave to the whipping post? That was the law and those were the facts. If you believe the jury should only judge the facts and apply the law then the answer is yes. I couldn't bring myself to do that personally..

No, of course not, i would nullify slavery laws if we had slavery laws on the books. But. to my knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, the 13th and 14th amendment abolished slavery at the state and federal level....and though i feel old, I was not prior to 1865 to serve on a jury. And, again, when discussing jury nullification people always reach for the extremes...that's a disingenuous hypo. As I previously stated, people discuss jury nullification in the context of DUI laws, drug offenses, and taxes and try to couch it in terms of nullifying a law that is "unjust" to society at a whole and then pull the slavery hypo/straw man. When, in reality, its just a self-serving interest. If you want to change a particular criminal law, do it through the process that actually forms the foundation of our government and is found in the Constitution -- petition and redress.

 

[KitingHigh]

Just because a law can be used to destroy someone's life doesn't mean that it always should be used. I think it's completely fair for jurors to take that into consideration as to whether applying a law just because it's on the books should be done. I don't want to live in a country, as much as many would have us do, where we remove the humanity of people being charged with offenses.

I take great offense anytime my government tells me that they're doing something terribly unjust because it's the law, end of story. Ok, I'll work to change the law, but that takes time. In the meantime I'll do what I can within my power to convince those who have the authority to use or ignore that law to choose the ethical, just, and moral choice every time.

True ,American words right here.

 

[Fijimn]

6th amendment guarantees jury trials.
None of the contemporaries to the passage of that legislation shared your confusion about the power of juries. I’m on my phone, so you can google the Founders and jury nullification to enlighten yourself on this subject.
Jury nullification is a check in the hands of the people against unjust laws/prosecution. It has long been understood as such.

Yes, the 6th amendment guarantees jury trial is criminal and civil matters over a certain dollar amount. Jury nullification is not cited or mentioned in the 6th amendment....nor is it found in Article III. It is not a check and balance against unjust prosecution nor has it been long understood as such. In the most basic procedure terms: it is a mistrial if you argue for jury nullification in summation.

 

[KitingHigh]

No, of course not, i would nullify slavery laws if we had slavery laws on the books. But. to my knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, the 13th and 14th amendment abolished slavery at the state and federal level....and though i feel old, I was not prior to 1865 to serve on a jury. And, again, when discussing jury nullification people always reach for the extremes...that's a disingenuous hypo. As I previously stated, people discuss jury nullification in the context of DUI laws, drug offenses, and taxes and try to couch it in terms of nullifying a law that is "unjust" to society at a whole and then pull the slavery hypo/straw man. When, in reality, its just a self-serving interest. If you want to change a particular criminal law, do it through the process that actually forms the foundation of our government and is found in the Constitution -- petition and redress.

We are finally getting somewhere. You admit that if you feel the law unjust then you you are OK with jury nullification, right? You agree that you would have done so with those laws?

I think some of the current laws are unjust and bad for society as a whole. I think that it is not only my right but my duty to act upon that, just as some jurors did back then. More importantly than society as a whole though, as a juror, I would determine what is right for the individuals involved.

I would never in a million years vote to convict someone of a dui that was sleeping in their car ( it my story, but a common one). I would vote guilty for the cop, prosecutor and judge who convicted someone of that every time for false imprisonment and extortion though. We are all responsible for our own decisions. We are not lemmings; at least not some of us.

 

[Fijimn]

We are finally getting somewhere. You admit that if you feel the law unjust then you you are OK with jury nullification, right? You agree that you would have done so with those laws?

I think some of the current laws are unjust and bad for society as a whole. I think that it is not only my right but my duty to act upon that, just as some jurors did back then. More importantly than society as a whole though, as a juror, I would determine what is right for the individuals involved.

I would never in a million years vote to convict someone of a dui that was sleeping in their car ( it my story, but a common one). I would vote guilty for the cop, prosecutor and judge who convicted someone of that every time for false imprisonment and extortion though. We are all responsible for our own decisions. We are not lemmings; at least not some of us.

I do not understand why people on the interwebz feel the need to insert passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks. I am not a lemming and you are not an independent free thinker (crusader). I respect your's and 97 position but disagree that there should be right of jury nullification. It undermines the rule of law and our democratic republic system of government. And, outside of the extremes (slavery), most arguments for jury nullification fall into the "i want to be able to do something that is illegal (usually a vice)" category. Not a statute or common law that is universally believed to be morally repugnant. Thus, the basis for my opinion that the right of jury nullification (in other words an instruction that the jury has the right to find in favor or not convict if they find the law morally wrong) is a very dangerous road to go down.

As an aside, your crusade against morally repugnant criminal laws just took at hit: Justice Kennedy is going to retire effective July 31st. I anticipate a rush to get a young hardliner in there before the midterms. Maybe SCOTUS can finally get rid of Miranda and all those horrible holdings from the Warren Court.

 

[seminole97]

Jury nullification is not cited or mentioned in the 6th amendment....nor is it found in Article III.

They don't mention verdicts either, but we both understand that juries have within their power to announce them, right?
I'm working from the assumption you're being this pedantic because you're ignorant of the history. Ignorance is cool, because it can be addressed with information.

It is not a check and balance against unjust prosecution nor has it been long understood as such.

Do you have evidence otherwise, or is it just ignorance of the contrary evidence at play here?
I asked about the Peter Zenger case, but you were silent. Are you unaware of its place in our history, particularly our secession from Great Britain?

If this is something you just haven't learned about I'd encourage you to read more history. Acknowledging the difficulty in proving a negative, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone at the founding who didn't understand this power held by juries.


"The most quoted instruction empowering a jury to judge the law comes from a civil case. In a rare jury trial in the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury:

“The facts comprehended in the case are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given. It is fortunate, on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: we entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province to deliver.”

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
—Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

 

[KitingHigh]

I do not understand why people on the interwebz feel the need to insert passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks. I am not a lemming and you are not an independent free thinker (crusader). I respect your's and 97 position but disagree that there should be right of jury nullification. It undermines the rule of law and our democratic republic system of government. And, outside of the extremes (slavery), most arguments for jury nullification fall into the "i want to be able to do something that is illegal (usually a vice)" category. Not a statute or common law that is universally believed to be morally repugnant. Thus, the basis for my opinion that the right of jury nullification (in other words an instruction that the jury has the right to find in favor or not convict if they find the law morally wrong) is a very dangerous road to go down.

As an aside, your crusade against morally repugnant criminal laws just took at hit: Justice Kennedy is going to retire effective July 31st. I anticipate a rush to get a young hardliner in there before the midterms. Maybe SCOTUS can finally get rid of Miranda and all those horrible holdings from the Warren Court.

The basis of our jury system hasn't changed. If you agree with jury nullification I. 1860 then it is still valid today. If you don't think it's valid then you think juries should have done the worst back then. You can say follow the law and agree that those people committing atrocities for Hitler were just doing their civic duty, or you can accept that each person should choose to do what they believe is right.

There are actually plenty of laws remaining in many states that are ridiculous. Do you think juries should enforce them if asked?

"In Memphis, it is illegal for women to drive cars alone. A woman must have a man in front of the car waving a red flag. This is to warn other motorists and pedestrians that a woman is driving. This could not possibly be enforced today, but it is still the law according to several sources."

https://www.tennesseedriver.com/blog/crazy-driving-laws-in-tennessee/

It doesn't work both ways. Either jury nullification is right or wrong? You can disagree with individual cases, but if you are against it, then you have to accept the injustices and wrongs that the jury could have avoided. At the time of those juries nullifying fugitive slave laws, the popular opinion was against them. There certainly was no consensus of universal repugnance.

Your entire premise is BS by the way. You keep claiming self interest, but that is exactly wrong as juries are responsible for others interests.

And I'm no fan of Kennedy, though I do think a balanced court is best.

 

[Fijimn]

They don't mention verdicts either, but we both understand that juries have within their power to announce them, right?
I'm working from the assumption you're being this pedantic because you're ignorant of the history. Ignorance is cool, because it can be addressed with information.



Do you have evidence otherwise, or is it just ignorance of the contrary evidence at play here?
I asked about the Peter Zenger case, but you were silent. Are you unaware of its place in our history, particularly our secession from Great Britain?

If this is something you just haven't learned about I'd encourage you to read more history. Acknowledging the difficulty in proving a negative, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone at the founding who didn't understand this power held by juries.


"The most quoted instruction empowering a jury to judge the law comes from a civil case. In a rare jury trial in the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury:

“The facts comprehended in the case are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given. It is fortunate, on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: we entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province to deliver.”

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
—Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

I love when the IT guy calls me ignorant on Constitutional law. Jury nullification finds its history at English common law and was somewhat codified in the Manga Carta. I am quite familiar with the history of jury nullification and its evolution. The suggest that we can infer the role of juries to render verdict (although verdict is not mentioned); therefore, we can also infer that the jury has the right (that an attorney can argue that option during summation) is nonsensical.

 

[kc78]

God if you want to get rid of the right of Miranda then I'm out of this conversation.

I am terrified of what may happen with his retirement. If Trump get's two hardliners in place, America is possibly screwed for a very long time.

 

[Fijimn]

God if you want to get rid of the right of Miranda then I'm out of this conversation.

I am terrified of what may happen with his retirement. If Trump get's two hardliners in place, America is possibly screwed for a very long time.

I'm not suggesting that. However, the Constitutional basis for Miranda is tenuous at best. That has been occurred by most originalists including those on the court today.

And not to get political-- just reality -- there is a very good chance that Trump is re-elected and the Senate doesn't change. Ginsberg is 85 and Breyer is 79....do the math.

 

[KitingHigh]

I do not understand why people on the interwebz feel the need to insert passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks. I am not a lemming and you are not an independent free thinker (crusader). I respect your's and 97 position but disagree that there should be right of jury nullification. It undermines the rule of law and our democratic republic system of government. And, outside of the extremes (slavery), most arguments for jury nullification fall into the "i want to be able to do something that is illegal (usually a vice)" category. Not a statute or common law that is universally believed to be morally repugnant. Thus, the basis for my opinion that the right of jury nullification (in other words an instruction that the jury has the right to find in favor or not convict if they find the law morally wrong) is a very dangerous road to go down.

As an aside, your crusade against morally repugnant criminal laws just took at hit: Justice Kennedy is going to retire effective July 31st. I anticipate a rush to get a young hardliner in there before the midterms. Maybe SCOTUS can finally get rid of Miranda and all those horrible holdings from the Warren Court.

seriously? You think Miranda, letting people know their Constitutional rights, is a bad thing?

 

[Fijimn]

seriously? You think Miranda, letting people know their Constitutional rights, is a bad thing?

No. And I didn't mean to imply that, although I can see that I turned off the sarcasm font. I hold the opinion that Warren was a fantastic jurist and what the country needed at the time. Most originalists will argue (quite persuasively) that Miranda and most of the Warren Court's opinions on civil rights did not have a sound basis in the Constitution.

 

[kc78]

The constitution was meant to be a living document. I find Constitutional Originalist rhetoric as frustrating as Religious Fundamentalist rhetoric.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Not a fan of the idea of jury nullification. To me it's similar to convicting someone on the grounds they were up to no good and were probably guiltily of something.

Jurors probably practice some form of nullification anyway in their everyday decisions, but to encourage it as a widespread or acceptable practice is asking for trouble.

 

[kc78]

Jury nullification needs to take into account both the victim and the person being charged. If there's a victim, then there needs need to be considered as well. In cases where there is no victim (Like so many drug crimes which have destroyed lives due to the overzealous nature of our judicial system and laws) then go for it.

 

[seminole97]

I love when the IT guy calls me ignorant on Constitutional law.

I’m just an INTJ, so I call’em like I see’em.
I love when the lawyer makes my case.
To wit:

“Jury nullification... is not a check and balance against unjust prosecution nor has it been long understood as such.”

ORLY?

“Jury nullification finds its history at English common law and was somewhat codified in the Manga Carta.”

Now I can start adding examples of jury nullification, but you probably had them for homework at some point, right?
So how do you then contend this wasn’t a long understood practice? How many centuries to qualify?

I am quite familiar with the history of jury nullification and its evolution.

Then you’re aware the freedom of the press we enjoy today is a direct result of the Zenger case wherein the jury nullified the verdict the law demanded.
I don’t get how you’re simultaneously aware of this history, and just a few posts above deny the existence of this history.

My career is IT, but my schooling and my interest have always been history. Your interpretation is notable to me because it doesn’t jive with what I’ve been exposed to. Literally everything I’ve seen on the subject points to the understanding you deny.
I’m hoping you can show me something I haven’t seen. Something that is the opposite of this:

“The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.”
-Theophilus Parsons

 

[West Duval Nole]

It is really simple to get eliminated. Simply tell them you are biased and think either police are always correct and the person is guilty or no one is guilty and all police are corrupt so everyone should walk.

 

[Finance85]

It is really simple to get eliminated. Simply tell them you are biased and think either police are always correct and the person is guilty or no one is guilty and all police are corrupt so everyone should walk.

I've joked about that, but couldn't do that in reality.