Slashdot Mirror

If you would have spent a quarter of the time it took to write your post on researching the matter instead you would know that you are wrong. Jury nullification

Is Jury Nullification Legal?

Yes, jury nullification is legal in the United States and many other countries as well. The rest of this section will discuss only the details with respect to the United States.

In the United States, it is illegal for a judge to direct a jury that it must deliver a Guilty verdict, jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts whatever their reasons may be, and a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty cannot be overturned.

Are you allowed to code them to be aware of jury nullification?

For those who don't know what jury nullification is: Fully Informed Jury Association

Lots of good information here, that you will almost never hear from a judge or prosecuting attorneys.

If not, then they have no say over your non-harming actions -- just as Walmart cannot fine me for violating their internal policies, but they can fine their workers. If you harm someone, then you're going to face consequences, whether through Common Law, or through vigilantism.

But, they don't want anybody to understand that their rules only apply to their employees. Which is why they crack down on people distributing FIJA fliers (from http://fija.org/ -- note that they take Bitcoin donations now!) outside of courthouses.

The Constitution guarantees a freedom of expression in the first amendment. It does not say, "This amendment is inferior to NSA letters"; it says, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The existence of "government classified information" precisely indicates the existence of "government conspiracies." A conspiracy is when two or more people work together, when one or more other people don't know about it. A surprise party is a benign form of conspiracy. Malicious forms include the mafia, the Patriot Act, etc.

Now, were I in his position, would I speak freely? That's a difficult one; I like my freedom, but then again I'm a shard of light and I'll return to the Creator so it doesn't really matter what happens to this corpse. Still, I avoid pain.

If ever there was a case that cried out for JURY NULLIFICATION by fully informed juries, this is it.

He and his Silk Road may have been helping illegal activities to some extent. The persecutors [sic] certainly thought so. As do the police when they bust competitors. But a jury has the right to examine both law and facts, in this case to determine whether the help performed was actually criminal, no matter what the law said.

In refusing to thoroughly instruct the jury, the judge tampered with it! Just because SCOTUS has ruled nullification does not _have_ be to instructed does not mean it should not be.

In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was. Usually they rule on findings of fact, but that is not a requirement as far as I know. There are a number of organizations proselytizing what they believe are the full "rights" of a jury, for instance, the fully informed jury association.

This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone - it's impossible t know the entirety of the law and so its impossible to avoid ever breaking it.

At the moment my fear of tyranny outweighs my fear of racists, though. I don't know if that will always be the case or if that historically would have been a poor assessment generally, but I think we need to think long and hard about ameliorating the potential issues of wrongful acquittals in other ways before risking an increase of wrongful convictions.

The judicial process does have a feedback mechanism: jury nullification. http://fija.org/

Add'l reading is here: https://fija.org/

At one point in US history, juries understood they were fighting against unfair & unjust British law. Sadly, that is no longer taught. I wonder how many people question the judge's instructions? Now, in my late 40's I completely distrust police, but when I was in my 20's it would have been unthinkable.

"Historically, jury nullification freed the Klansman and hanged the black man."

There is A LOT more to its history than that. Has it been used for what most of us consider to be bad purposes? Sure. Far more often, it has been used to nullify bad or unconstitutional laws.

Go visit and read some of their material about the history of nullification.

"No they are not allowed to tell the jury about jury nullification. technically no one is allowed to tell the jury about jury nullification, and doing do would be precedent for a mistrial."

Yes, they are allowed. The judge is the one who ultimately decides. I happen to know the Executive Director of The Fully Informed Jury Association, and I am familiar with the political and legal history of jury nullification. The actual situation is different than you present.

Many judges and prosecutors don't like the jury to know about jury nullification, because they don't like the jury to know that in many ways it has more power than they do. But they can and in some cases have told the jury about it themselves.

You left out jury box.

The only way that is going to happen is through jury nullification of patent law. http://fija.org/

Not only demands for Jury Trials -

Occupy should start the Nullify movement - E.G. if you are on a jury refuse to return a guilty verdict for victimless BS charges.

It is your right and DUTY to judge not only guilt or innocence but also the merit of the law itself. Fully Informed Jury Association -

http://fija.org/

Now this is perhaps the best possible solution that I have heard! The solution is unlikely but it would work miraculously. Rendering not guilty verdicts for certain vice and victimless crimes will really put the system to a test. If everyone agreed to do this, not even voir dire would weed out jurors sympathetic to the prosecution. In fact, the policing system in America would be upended and we would see rights return to the people. Police won't enforce crimes where their actions will result in a not guilty verdict. Much of the crimes code would, in effect, be decriminalized.

Not only demands for Jury Trials -

Occupy should start the Nullify movement - E.G. if you are on a jury refuse to return a guilty verdict for victimless BS charges.

It is your right and DUTY to judge not only guilt or innocence but also the merit of the law itself.
Fully Informed Jury Association -

http://fija.org/

Please, please take the time to (re)educate yourself regarding the function and purpose of individual jurors. Although many people believe as you do that:

My understanding is that the jury's job is to decide any facts that are in dispute, such as whether someone did something. A judge decides matters of law, such as whether that something is illegal.

...this is most emphatically NOT the truth.

If you'll visit the FIJA website (Fully Informed Jury Association), it is explained in plain and easily understandable language why a jury has the right and duty to sit in judgment of the law as well as the/any disputed facts.

That said, do not tell the judge or lawyers that you have this knowledge. Otherwise you risk getting sidelined from the process, put under a bench warrant which makes you unable to sit on a jury or inform any other jurors of their rights and duties. I know this because it happened to me.

Likely or not, once you're in the box, it's too late to start browsing fija. Why go in unprepared on the assumption you're going to get a case where fit won't come up? You're gambling with others' justice...

Note this quote from the above article: And by that point, when most every citizen is guilty of the crime, no jury will convict. This assumes that jury nullification is still a viable option. Note that the USA legal system is attempting to dismantle and marginalize the principle of jury nullification, precisely because of this sort of issue. This author suggests you support FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, to help keep empower jurors to defend justice.

Note the discussion in Slashdot, just a few days ago, about the pros and cons of jury nullfication: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2339776&cid=36832512 .

You must be a product of law school.

I suggest you take a look at this:
http://fija.org/

fija.org

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works To:

Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce corrupt laws;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto—juror nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

Thank you!

fija.org

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works To:

Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce corrupt laws;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto—juror nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

Yet the jury is given such specific instructions that if they don't know their rights as a juror before serving on the jury, then the judge has nearly complete control over what happens.

And *anyone* asked/compelled to serve on a US jury should read up on what it is all about at the FIJA website.

Understand the System, before you blindly perpetuate it. Please.

It's quite illegal in jurisdictions I'm familiar with for a juror in the jury room to say and then follow through by voting on a statement like "I don't care what the law says, I'm not convicting this guy even if he is guilty" while it is perfectly legal for the same juror to keep his trap shut and just vote "not guilty."

You didn't say where these jurisdictions are located, but I don't believe you are correct, at least in the USA - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_States Also, from http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_If_you_are_called_for_Jury_Duty.pdf "You can't be punished for voting according to your conscience. Judges (and other jurors) often pressure hold-out jurors into abandoning their true feelings and voting with the majority "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://fija.org/category/jury-nullification/
"This appears to be an intimidation tactic by a bully issued under color of law to circumvent the First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. While it may be more convenient for the court to have a jury that is easily steered by orders from the bench and selective filtering of the information it is permitted access to, it is NOT the purpose of a jury merely to rubber stamp the decision it is led to by the government. Were this the case, a jury would not be needed at all.
    Rather, it is the primary function of the independent juror to protect his or her fellow citizens- both the defendant and the rest of us who will be affected by the outcome of the case and the legal precedent it will set- from abuse by government. As the only people (aside from the defendant) involved in the court proceedings who are not making a living by perpetuating the system as dictated by government officials, jurors have not only a right, but a responsibility, to act independently- to think for themselves, to consult their consciences in deliberations, to judging the fairness and applicability of the law as well as the facts of the case , and to deliver justice when rendering a verdict."

Of course, everything can be misused, as jury nullification was to prop up racism in past decade...

There are some who disagree with you. Google "Jury Nullification" or check out http://fija.org/category/jury-nullification/

You won't get away from it. This is the answer the one you don't want to hear.

No more ignoring these baby steps year after year, oh that sounds reasonable, or this sounds good. Finally when we are a total dragnet because of a few hundred of these 911/DHS/UN/CFR cogs your getting scared because the banksters haven't been arrested yet now the crosshairs are on you.

Now that we have your attention perhaps you'll be more politically active besides just playing group think on /. or voting off the flyers in your mail box at the last moment. Maybe you might want to see the vote counted? Or perhaps you'll learn about jury nullification as the law you re-write or the life you might save might be one of your own by someone equally educated who might one day equally judge you.

"if the general public stands up to them." The general public is well-shielded from being educated about their abilities while serving on a jury. Juries can not convict if they don't like the law. Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/ http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/

"if the general public stands up to them." The general public is well-shielded from being educated about their abilities while serving on a jury. Juries can not convict if they don't like the law. Fully Informed Jury Association http://fija.org/ http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/

Jurors before becoming jurors could have read that article in Wikipedia and had their opinions affected. They could also have read lots of other information previously. Why should a line be draw after they become jurors? I can maybe understand the issue about press about the case, but even there, should not a jury be instructed on how to come to a fair decision? It's supposed to be juror of peers, and now peers have access to the internet...

Here is what most judges really don't want jurors to know about:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    http://fija.org/

Jurors on cases about questionable laws like non-violent drug offenses and copyright violation need to known that a whole reason juries exists is so that "peers" can decide the law is unjust and refuse to convict under it. This can and has been abused to not convict for racist crimes, but none-the-less, a main point for the right of a jury trial is so juries can nullify laws. Otherwise, why not let the experienced judge decide?

If a bunch of "peers" don't think a "crime" like smoking marijuana or sharing music online was substantially wrong, then the whole point of a jury is so peers can say that by refusing to convict. But judges will supposedly elimiate any juror who knows about this concept of jury nullification.

Should a judge *not* informing juries of "jurry nullification" be a real reason for mistrial in our society with endless conflicting and often selectively enforced laws? Defendents in cases involving unfair or unwise laws are being deprived of their constitutional rights in that sense.

And you get juries who say essentially, "We had no choice but to convict and send someone to jail for life for a third strike of being caught smoking dope, even though no one on the jury thought that was just or fair -- because the judge told us we had no choice."

Fom Wikipedia: "Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[35] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[36] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[37] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[38] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[39]"

The above could be read as a systematic denial of justice... Which may help explain part of why the USA has so many more people in prison per capita than any other industrialzed country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

This is going to be a very tough issue for the courts to resolve

It doesn't need to be, just pass a law allowing Fully Informed Juries. Even better, cut court cases by bringing back jury nullification.

Falcon

are jurors also not supposed to educate themselves about he process of law?

Sometime neither defendant, judge, nor prosecutor wants an educated jury. Other times one or two may want one but not the other parties. Actually if a potential juror knows about jury nullification if the judge does not dismiss the juror the prosecutor will ask for the dismissal. And other tymes defense will seek dismissal if the juror knows about Fully Informed Juries.

Falcon

You are free to use that as a reason that you can't serve on the jury.

The judge is free to accept that reason or not, and some actually might.

The fastest and easiest to get dismissed from jury duty, even when you don't want to be, is to say you believe in jury nullification and Fully Informed Juries.

I was notified twice I had to appear for jury selection. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to serve on a jury involving possession or distribution of drugs or another victimless crime so I could use jury nullification and send a signal these types of laws restrict liberty. Unfortunately both tymes for 2 days I sat around waiting to be called for questioning without being called.

Falcon

I hope it does get heard, this would be a great time for jury nullification. Hopefully, the Fully Informed Jury Association will be around to educate jurors.

Well, this experiment in mob rule that we call democracy isn't working so well either, judging by what we've elected over the past couple decades, and how they've screwed over the very people who elected them. :(

I like the way Winston Churchill put it: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Partially because of mob rule we have bad laws.

By "qualified pool" I didn't necessarily mean by merit, but by citizens of voting age (something like jury duty, except this would be congress duty).

I don't know about everywhere in the US but in states like Florida people are added to the potential jury pool by registering to vote. I was called to show up twice. When I went I was hoping to be called to serve on a jury for a drug offense or other victimless crime. I believe in Jully Informed Juries and Jury Nullification and wanted to send the message that these laws were bad and unconstitutional. Unfortunately for 2 days each tyme all I did was sit there waiting to be called for questioning.

If you can't tell, I've become somewhat disaffected with the entire concept of democracy; as was pointed out centuries ago, it starts falling apart as soon as the voter realises that he can vote himself largesse from the public treasury.

Oh, I agree but no government leads to chaos. Some say anarchy can work but I don't see how. So instead I try to limit the size, and power, of government.

Falcon

If you think you're a fair person, being on a jury is not a bad thing.

Even better, being a fully informed member of a jury

http://fija.org/ --(Fully Informed Jury Association)

When I was on a federal jury a few years ago. The trial was held 15 miles from the "crime scene" and as much as 45 or more from the juror's homes. It took some jurors over 2.5 hours to drive home. (I live in a city exceedingly bad for commuting.)

However, none of us resented the defendant for this. It was remarkable that everyone felt it was their civic duty.

My only complaint about the entire process is that the jury (pretty much the entire jury) felt that the charges were overly aggressive. A very young man had been selling crack, and admitted to selling crack. But because he discussed crack prices and pickups over the telephone with other people, it was conspiracy. Even though he did not benefit from the conspiracy. The way the instructions to the jury were written, there was no choice in the outcome. In addition to selling charges, the young man went to jail on conspiracy for 20-30 years.

The judge should have been required to explain to the jury about jury nullification. We would have nullified those charges so quickly it would have made the DA's head spin. All potential jurors should understand what jury nullification before they begin.

actually, it IS the point of an american jury to selectively apply laws.

its not well mentioned, this notion of jury nullification but its by-design that its in there, not by mistake. it allows jurors to judge the person entirely outside of any current law. laws come and go, but our human notion of guilt or innocence can often rise above whatever laws were purchased and put on the books at the time.

had the jury been informed they had the right to judge the law, itself, as well as the case, they might have been able to come to a more sensible conclusion.

I cannot see how 'jail time' is at all appropriate for *anything* a sysadmin can do. sorry, but there is so much other 'bad stuff' going on in the world, putting sysadmins in jail is not one of the high prio things we need to spend time/resources on.

Mr. Childs DID have a peer (or more realistically a better) on his jury. [...] Also remember that it takes only one juror for a mistrial. All jurors have to agree for a conviction.

But was he a fully-informed juror?

Many people say they would, but it's a lot different when you are considering giving your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Why your contempt for juries? It's the last line of civil defense against unjust laws.

That network engineer, IIRC, said here something to the effect that he didn't think Childs had any criminal intent, and that he was doing what he thought was right for the city. The only reason for the conviction was that the letter of the law appeared to be against him.

This was a case where a fully informed jury should have acquitted, but unfortunately juries are not fully informed. A jury has the right, nay the responsibility, to judge the LAW as well as the FACTS.

Basically, put yourself in Childs' situation. You did what you thought was right. (Let's assume that's the case, since I believe that's what the juror said.) Wouldn't you hope that somebody would inject some common sense at some point rather than robotically reading the law?

That's why we have juries. But judges tell them all they can do is robotically read the law. It's awful.

http://fija.org/

You are wrong, the law is subject to democratic review.

http://fija.org

Excuse me, but did you say this guy failed?

This guy was a juror and heard all the evidence, you did not. What makes you think you are more informed than he is? Please explain to me and everyone on Slashdot what makes you think your limited information gleaned from summarizations by uninformed people allows you to make a better decision in this case than someone who was provided all the facts and is trained in the subjects concerned in this case.

Your arrogance is amazing and you need to STFU.

Yes I did, and I qualified it. Control your knee-jerk "OMG STFU!!11" reaction and finish reading my comment. Specifically, where I said:

...if you truly felt what you state in your comments, then you failed miserably as a juror in this case.

...and the entire paragraph where that quote came from. Then, read up on the Juror's Handbook http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf or any other document describing the rights and responsibilities of juries in the USA, paying attention to the portions about "voting your conscience"; or just google the phrase "jury vote your conscience" yourself. Hopefully this requires no further explanation.

The court also remove people who attempt to inform other jurors of jury nullification. http://www.fija.org/ Juries are supposed to be the failsafe against unjust laws. But the courts and lawyers frequently subvert that system and scam you into believing that you must vote as the law dictates.

"We had a lot of sympathy for him," said juror Jason Chilton, who is a network engineer. "He was put in a position he should not have been put in.

Then they should have nullified the law - that's why we have juries. Juries have two jobs: one is to judge the crime, the other is to judge the law. Last time I sat on Jury Duty they showed an industrial training video that said pretty much the opposite. Only because I've read the US Supreme Court decisions specifically on the topic did I know better. I told the judge that I could not follow his orders if they ran contrary to natural rights and was dismissed. Others think it's better to lie and get on the jury and they have some points.

Did nobody hand out FIJA literature to these jurors?

Fully Informed Jury Association

Prosecutors aren't obliged to prosecute, and juries aren't obliged to convict. That they ignore this discretion and convict anyway is a reflect of the authoritarian streak in American culture.

I had to sit through a jury-duty session last year or face being caged like a wild animal by the State of NH. We had to watch a video which explicitly says that the jury has to follow all directions of the judge. I was dismissed from each case because I told the judge that I would not follow his orders if they were in conflict with the NH Bill of Rights. I offered a handful of US Supreme Court decisions lauding jury nullification as my rationale.

Potential jurors will want to visit the Fully Informed Jury Association website before their conscription.

Except that juries are empowered to be the judges of facts....

Yes, and so much more.

http://fija.org/

Good point. I was thinking that a jury ban on intartube-connected devices was solely to prevent access to this site:

http://fija.org/ [Fully Informed Jury Association.org]

Merely reciting the quote on the home page beginning with "The primary function of the independent juror..." will be enough to get you thrown off of most jury panels.

Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed. From their site fija.org:

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."

I've been selected for Jury duty, and in the written material it said that the Judge would tell us what the law is, and that was the law, not what we knew. It's because the Judge is supposed to interpret the law. The jury is only supposed to determine the facts. i.e. The jury determines that Bob killed Joe. It's up the the judge to say it's illegal for Bob to kill Joe and what the parameters of punishment might be. In some states the Judge then determines the sentence, in others, the jury picks a sentence consistent with what the Judge has determined. Ask a lawyer for clarification in your state.

No, that's what they tell you in jury duty, but it's patently false. The jury's most important job is to judge the law.

The US Supreme Court has held over and over again that the jury is the innocent man's last defence against bad laws, and that jury nullification is a right and necessary function in a free society.

FIJA will have all the materials you need to verify.

I was prevented from serving on a jury when I told the Judge I could not follow the instructions he outlined because they violated the State and US Constitutions and cited the relevant cases. Another strategy is to lie (ascent) and then be a good juror, but the system is set up to keep people who understand their responsibilities as a juror off the jury.

This is where, hopefully, Jury Nullification of Law would come into play. Judges and Prosecutors prevent jury pool from being informed of their right to disagree with the judge and the Rule of Law.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

http://fija.org/