Jury Duty

[62Nole]

My brother served on a jury many years ago there in Tally. He was teaching and working on his doctorate then. They found the guy guilty of murder.

I've only done rinky-dinky drunk driving or pillaging trials.

 

[Fijimn]

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?



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

I’m not arguing that jury nullification did not occur nor am I arguing that-as our law was developing—some judges allowed nullification to be argued. When arguing constitution law, first go to the document. As we know, it’s not found. I cite to the Magna Carta and English common law to support that jury nullification was an acknowledged event and even codified as a right in the Magna Carta—one of the many documents the Founders studied and found support for the basis of our natural rights. Yet, the Founders elected not to include the express right in the federal constitution. And to my knowledge it was include in state constitutions. For an originalist the discussion ends there

You argue it’s an implied right. Implied rights are difficult and the basis for many challenges. I suggest that it is illogical that the Founders in 1789 created this novel system of government where in order for a law to pass it must go through the painstaking process of passing two houses and then being approved by the president and at the same time find it perfectly acceptable that 12 farmers in Virginia can unilaterally strike down the law. That’s undemocratic. And I’ll remind you that there was no judicial review until Marburg v Madison. Passing laws and whether said laws were constitutional fell solely in the jurisdiction of the legislative and executive branches — with the checks and balances falling on the voting public.

The right of nullification was pretty much dispelled by 1860 - meaning arguing that right to a jury. I would suggest that evidence that nullification occurred is not evidence that it forms the bedrock of our judicial. But instead a carryover wherein in a short amount of time (short in terms of judicial precedence) nullification was recognized as an aberration to the rule of law and a democratic republic system of government

 

[runkpanole]

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.

That seems like more of an argument to do away with mandatory minimums.

 

[kc78]

That seems like more of an argument to do away with mandatory minimums.

Well, that's one of the things, there's plenty of other areas that seem unjust as well.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Well, that's one of the things, there's plenty of other areas that seem unjust as well.

Im curious what other areas.

The problem I see with the concept of jury nullification is everyone has their pet issues they see as unfair.

 

[kc78]

Im curious what other areas.

The problem I see with the concept of jury nullification is everyone has their pet issues they see as unfair.

I'm a bit unsure how far I'm allowed to trod down this path before I anger the moderators. But I'll just say there is ample evidence that things like our entire focus of the war on drugs has done nothing but make the situation within certain segments of our population worse. Things like broken windows policing are another. In either occurrence, in 40 years we've raised the number of people in prison from 700,000 in the 70's (A point that at the time many were saying was too high and needed to reverse) to now almost 3 million. Much of this is driven by the private prison industry which donates obscene amounts of money to candidates and only works if you fill their prisons with non-violent offenders who really have no business anywhere.

So I'd recommend a good start would be removing mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes, reconsidering our broken windows policing tactics, and making private prisons illegal.

 

[Random_John]

I served on Dalvin Cook's jury. I am surprised I was picked. I was also surprised by the uf grad that was picked. I really do not know how jurrors are selected.

This wasn't my first time being on a jury. I can't stand being a jurror. The way people are blind sided when they are picked is not cool. Not cool at all.

 

[TallyNole93]

How are you blind sided? You are called in and questioned. How is it a surprise? You said or didn't say something both sides approved.

 

[kc78]

How are you blind sided? You are called in and questioned. How is it a surprise? You said or didn't say something both sides approved.

Most people complain of the limited time they're prepared for the jury pool days. Getting a letter in the mail giving you just a few weeks to make preparations is difficult. I really do wish they were required to give you far more warning of your dates. Booking pools 6 months in advance would help to lower that issue, but I don't know the logistics that go into the process. That may not be feasible.

 

[KitingHigh]

Most people complain of the limited time they're prepared for the jury pool days. Getting a letter in the mail giving you just a few weeks to make preparations is difficult. I really do wish they were required to give you far more warning of your dates. Booking pools 6 months in advance would help to lower that issue, but I don't know the logistics that go into the process. That may not be feasible.

I've been called twice, but never even got to the selection process. Each time I had adequate notice for the day of waiting in the pool, but had I been selected the lead time before the days or weeks of serving would have been inadequate. One was a tobacco lawsuit and they said it would take two to three weeks. That's a lot of time off to plan for.

 

[Finance85]

Update -

OK. I was selected. I'll come back to that.

Trial was a criminal trial. Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, aggravated battery, violation of probation, and violation of an order of protection.

Went through the entire week, and the trial was 'canceled' late Thursday, so it didn't go to the jury. I didn't look at the clerk's website to find out if it was a mistrial or a plea.

Interesting question by the defense attorney during voir dire.
"If the trial ended right now, would you vote 'guilty', 'need more information', or 'not guilty'?"
She went by row, asking for a show of hands. The vast majority voted 'need more information'. There were 63 in the pool and maybe 10 voted 'not guilty'. So sad that people don't have common sense.

Since I was the only one on the front row to vote 'not guilty', she asked me to explain why I raised my hand. I told her there was no evidence presented, and it's innocent until proven guilty. I'm guessing that's why I was picked.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I don’t really care for that question. They’re coming in trying to show they can keep an open mind and weigh all the evidence. Doesn’t surprise me they aren’t thinking about the burden of proof before they’re even selected to serve.

 

[Finance85]

I don’t really care for that question. They’re coming in trying to show they can keep an open mind and weigh all the evidence. Doesn’t surprise me they aren’t thinking about the burden of proof before they’re even selected to serve.

I should have explained that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney both gave opening statements about the burden of proof before they started asking questions.

The question was a fair one in as much as no evidence had been presented so there could only be one answer if the people were actually listening to the question the way it was asked. I actually think it was a great question, but understand you didn't have all the context.