Unfortunately, that approach will all too often yield an improperly set up computer. There is lots of hardware out there which has special drivers written for their almost standard NICs, modems, screens, etc. If you load stock Windows, you get a lot of almost working subsystems which is hopefully good enough to get on the Internet and download the actual drivers for the machine. Of course, if the drivers were actually distinguishable by name, it might also help.
A lot of people get a trend right but screw up on the timing. MS has a boatload of cash and is acquiring more every month. Until they go through a quarter with negative net cash flow, I wouldn't even start the MS death spiral countdown. Then, like Apple, they can go through a decade or more wearing the "doomed" moniker.
Nobody, not even the most rabid pro-life activist has ever held that breast cancer is solely caused by abortions, merely that abortion is one factor in raising risk.
From what I understand, these sorts of charges get levelled by both sides, depending on the administration's ideological color. It is just that right now, it's the liberal's turn and they have a bigger megaphone. Does anybody remember advocacy for masturbation under the Clinton administration and the furor that provoked? Each side twists things, that's the trouble with govt. funded science. Let's not delude ourselves that either side is 'pure'.
When the budget was balanced the Congress was controlled by those dastardly Republicans. The legislation needed to balance the budget had to originate (as per the Constitution) in the House of Representatives controlled then by those horrible Republicans. President Clinton, like all Presidents before him, has only limited control over whether there are deficits or not.
Re the defendent in the case, if you needed attractive defendents to properly establish constitutionality than Roe v. Wade would be illegitimate as would the Miranda decision. Throwing mud at a particular defendent in order to cast doubt as to constitutionality again makes me wonder as to your actual bar status.
Beyond that, the cite that I gave wasn't anything more than a listing of relevant State Constitutions. Are you claiming the cites are erroneous? No? Then you're an ass who is fast losing credibility.
Yes, the federal record is a bit weaker for the nullification case than the state record in the cited constitutions but you went out of your way to make broad claims that nullification simply didn't exist in current law (not federal law, current law period).
The thing that convinces me that nullification does exist on the federal level is that jurors are instructed that they must find defendants not guilty based on doubt but if there is no doubt they are not similarly instructed that they must convict if the evidence leaves no doubt in their mind. They are only instructed that they "should" convict. That, and the fact that nobody seems to have been accused of a violation of their juror's oath and prosecuted for such violation leads me to believe that the anti-nullification case is all bluster and noise, signifying nothing.
The question is whether those judges who have stated their opinions are stating constitutional ones.
You've retreated (silently, true) from the proposition that jury nullification is not supported in law to the idea that it is not supported in federal law.
If you would either assert that the Constitution (federal or state) grants rights (thus exposing you for a fool who doesn't understand our legal tradition at all) or demonstrate where these Constitutions which recognize jury nullification are overridden by superior Constitutional authority (not mere judicial assertion).
The judge doesn't have the right to just make stuff up. He has to base his decisions on some Constitutional text even if it's merely to override some 9th or 10th amendment unenumerated right. So far we've got nothing in the Constitutional text, merely judicial opinions that rest on air, and thus are illegitimate constitutional interpretation.
All you've described so far is legislating from the bench. A Constitutional support for the opinion you've cited wouldn't hurt what's left of your case.
The entire point of the powerful abusing the courts by burying their poorer opponents is that the fear of becoming destitute will lead to quick settlements without the bad publicity attending trial. Without the fear, the strategy loses its power. If you're going to get your money back after the big corporation loses, a lot more small companies and individuals will stand up for their rights because they get lots of good publicity, David and Goliath support and they get a realistic shot at their own payoff when they countersue after the spurious suit(s) fail(s).
Loser pays would not make a perfect world, merely a better one which is enough to nail down a particular variant and pass it ASAP.
Answer me this, what legal oaths are not subject to criminal proceedings when they are violated? If the violation of the oath is not punishable, why take an oath at all?
Why aren't we imprisoning jurors when they clearly are nullifying? Why aren't we giving jurors instructions that they *must* convict, rather that they *should* convict if the facts and law show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty? OTOH, jury instructions are that they *must* vote not guilty if there is reasonable doubt? Why is there a lack of symmetry? Could it be judicial recognition of nullification? I think it is.
[CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR JURY NULLIFICATION:
The Constitutions of Maryland (Art. XXIII, entire), Indiana (Art. I, sec. 19), Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16), and Georgia (Art. I sec. 1, para. 11, subsec. A), currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law"; that is, to nullify the law. For example, the Georgia Constitution says: "In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial...and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts." Attorneys in Georgia and Indiana are able to request nullification instructions from the judge to the jury and generally receive them, and are sometimes able to argue the law. Twenty states currently include jury nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases: Alabama (Art. I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art. II, sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. I, sec. 6); Delaware (Art. I, sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, sec. 4); Mississippi (Art. 3, sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, sec. 6); New York (Art. I, sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Art. I, sec. 7); South Carolina (Art. I, sec. 16); South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, sec. 19); Texas (Art. I, sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 3); Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 20). Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, "as in all other cases." [Source: Alan W. Scheflin, "Jury Nullification: the Right to Say No", Southern California Law Review, 45, p. 204 (1972). This list has been updated to 1996.]
When there is division amongst the states on an important issue, trial judges often look to federal authorities for guidance, and such is instructive in this case. Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Sands, Siffert, Loughlin & Reis, Instruction 4-2) suggests that juries should be told that it is their "duty to acquit the defendant" if they harbor a reasonable doubt, however, rather than instruct juries that they have a corresponding "duty to convict," i.e., "must" convict if they are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the treatise recommends that juries be advised that they "should vote to convict: if the government has carried its burden (leaving a jury to conclude that it has the authority to nullify even in the absence of a reasonable doubt) [and our own federal district courts agree on this prerogative of the jury, see also, e.g., United States v. Will L. Dawson, and Derrick Termail Willis, Criminal Cause Numbers: IP 95-0064M-01-02, citing approvingly Beaver v. State, 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118 (1957) to the effect that "Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides that 'in all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.' However, jurors should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not act arbitrarily, capriciously, upon a whim or prejudice.] While logic would seem to dictate that a corollary obligation be imposed on jurors, it is reversible error to charge that the jury must explain their doubts ever since the ordeal of Edward Bushell and the Penn jury hereinabove.
The argument may or may not be persuasive to you that it is right, the listing of state constitutional clauses explicitly answers your question. Yes, jury nullification is recognized in law as a right of the people.
Now the question remains on the federal level whether it is a right. But rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized. Limitations on rights and governing powers are granted by the US Constitution. So now that we've established that nullification *does* exist as law and is a right of the people, does the US Constitution eliminate that right?
The Supreme Court may settle a question with a sense of finality but the constitutionality of something exists independently of whether the SC has decided on it or not. To argue otherwise makes me question your actual bar status.
The SC denies certiori in the vast majority of appeals. Are cases that appeals courts have determined a law unconstitutional moot merely because the SC denies cert? If a district or appeals court rules the same direction as a 9-0 majority would on the SC, most time's they're going to deny cert.
We (anglo-american common law jurisdictions) used to throw jurors in jail for refusing to convict. We don't do that any more. What else, besides a recognition of jury nullification, explains the cessation of the practice of imprisoning or otherwise punishing jurors?
As for having to lie to use nullification. I did not lie and have never done so when asked about nullification the two times I was called to jury duty. I was disqualified in NY and not disqualified in a Chicago trial (malpractice case). I actually served as foreman in the end. We voted not guilty, not on nullification grounds, the guy simply didn't deserve to get convicted though both side's lawyers were snakes and we all thoroughly detested them.
If the entire jury pool would all answer that they would exercise their right to jury nullification, eventually the judges and the lawyers would be forced to give up their practice of using their ability to dismiss jurors for answering honestly that they would not convict. I expect someday that this will happen but the suppression of the right does not nullify the right even as Bull Connor and his fire hose did not change the Constitution.
So there are potentially large financial risks associated with larger financial pay offs? Geez, you'd think they'd get 3rd parties to finance that. Or maybe those cases weren't so good and nobody else wanted to take the risk?
In this country the lawyers are flush with cash. If they could get a nice profit by acting as banks for plaintiffs who couldn't afford the bond, they'd do it. Then again, they'd only do it for the good cases, not the BS ones.
You're losing the point that if a rich entity goes after you right now, they can beggar you (as even powerful corporations have discovered). If you are made financially whole, the corporation financially loses but you do not.
On the other hand, while the number of cases going forward would go down, it's much more likely that the number of guilty verdicts would go up since plaintiffs would no longer be reckless gamblers aiming at blackmail by lawsuit and getting 'go away' settlements but people with serious issues who are willing to risk their own money to gain justice.
It would also have the effect of cutting down on useless, BS fishing expeditions because that would just raise the stakes by raising the legal bills all around.
I would say that it is one of the unenumerated rights of the people.
Yes jury nullification is a double edged sword. Then so is free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights. If we are to treat all double edged swords with suspicion, we might as well treat the entire Bill of Rights that way. Which one of them is not subject to being used badly? In fact which one of them (outside of Amendment III) has not been used badly?
No, clearly the KKK marching in Skokie should have as little impact on the 1st amendment as the racist southern nullifications of decades past. If it's not so, what legal reasoning justifies disparate treatment? Were the anti-federalists right when they said enumeration of a Bill of Rights would eventually eviscerate all rights of the people that didn't make the list?
Please, can you cite the penalty for breaking this law, when last someone was charged with violating this law or even what specific code is being violated? I know about the Penn trial and about various attempts in English law centuries ago that imprisoned jurors for failing to convict as the judge instructed them to but that's never been US jurisprudence AFAIK. Please feel free to cite a case...
Mistaken on history? Did the jury nullifications of Peter Zenger and William Penn just not happen?
Mistaken on philosophy? How can you be mistaken on philosophy? That's just stupid. You might have a different philosophy, you might wrongly describe a particular philosophy but to be mistaken on philosophy just isn't in the nature of the beast.
Mistaken on the law? Well, that may or may not be. A lot of people fall on either side of the question and case law has been cited on both sides.
Mistaken on spelling? Well yes, and what does that make you? A spelling nazi, a specific kind of slashdot low life.
"In the instant case, the defendants do not directly challenge the proposition that a juror's refusal to follow the court's instructions on the law may be a proper basis for removal under Rule 23(b)"
That's from your link. In other words, the defense didn't even bring up the point that jury nullification is a right, rather that the dismissal of the juror was unjustified on other grounds. It's quite easy to bash a position that wasn't even given a fair representation by any of the parties. As the defendents were given what they wanted (new trials) no further challenges would arise from this anyway so it was a neat opportunity to say whatever the judges wanted safe from review. The correctness of it is almost beyond the point. They were safe in shooting their mouth off against one of the most profound inconveniences for a judge, the ability, the right, of a jury to ignore the high and mighty and not just decide the facts but the justice of the law as well.
Whether this awesome power of the jury has been misused at time to provide injustice is absolutely irrelevant to the existence or inexistance of the right. If the bill of rights were held under the same standard, what would happen to free speech after the klan marched in Skokie, Penthouse put an illustration of a girl in a meatgrinder in its pages and other insults to good taste and good sense.
Is there any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that has not created a bad result some time during our history (OK, amendment 3 but that's never come under test in any circumstance). In reality, the idea of malignant nullification nullifying jury nullification is profoundly unamerican and the decision you cite while giving the correct result (new trials) uses aberrational logic and would not stand review.
Now I'm not a judge, but it's just unamerican to nullify a right of the people by the bad exercise of that right by some people. If that logic holds, you might as well use the Constitution as toilet paper because it wouldn't be worth a damn.
Then start electing more Republicans. The American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) is the lobby for those lawyers who love the situation. ATLA and the trial lawyers individually give their money 90% to Democrats and as a result the Democrat party is the biggest road block to enacting 'loser pays' reforms.
There has been actual US case law cited in this thread stating that juries have the right to nullify and none cited that they do not. Doesn't that put the burden of proof on those who deny jury nullification to come up with some real documentation supporting their position?
As was previously noted (thanks zeugma-amp), US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) and US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) both establish that juries have a right to nullify. Are you aware of any superior court which overturned these opinions or any actual case law subsequent to these decisions that overturned them?
If not, then jury nullification is as much the law of the land as any other judicial decision.
FIJA is something like the defense of marriage act. Nobody is claiming that marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman under current law yet the Congress passed such a law.
Here is an account of the Zenger trial. I highly recommend it and if you read the account carefully, you will find that no matter how 'fringe' a view jury nullification is without a doubt deeply embedded in the idea of the american jury trial.
You might want to look up the Peter Zenger case. The entire principle of press freedom was established via a case of jury nullification. The jury has a right to decide on both the facts and the law.
I've been called for jury duty in both NY and IL. Interestingly, in NY, they played a tape that went over the Peter Zenger case and its importance (though they did not use the words jury nullification). Then again, in answering the judge's question I answered that yes, I would nullify if I felt it was called for. The judge and both attorney's pulled me aside, grilled me to abandon my position and when I wouldn't, the judge used his option to disqualify me from trial.
In Illinois, there was no mention of jury nullification or the Zenger case, the judge went temporarily off the record and stated to the jury that they were not to judge the law (it was the only time during the proceedings he went off record). I again answered the question that yes, I would nullify but this time was not disqualified (perhaps the judge did not notice, perhaps not, he was asking us in a group of 12 to simultaneously answer). I ended up being jury foreman and we unanimously acquited (though not on nullification grounds the law was fine, the guy just wasn't guilty).
Well, that's my own personal experience. I hope it corrects your impression that the law is not up to the jury to decide. It is and it always has been.
Guess what, you don't need to answer that. I remember an article about garages as a key competitive advantage for the US (I believe it was Forbes). How many start up firms took advantage of cheap space and were launched merely because the garage made the money numbers work? It turns out that lots of firms started that way including Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Apple Computers.
Plentiful bandwidth is the next century's garage. It will permit an entire new generation of information technology start ups to create new solutions we can't even conceive of.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, that approach will all too often yield an improperly set up computer. There is lots of hardware out there which has special drivers written for their almost standard NICs, modems, screens, etc. If you load stock Windows, you get a lot of almost working subsystems which is hopefully good enough to get on the Internet and download the actual drivers for the machine. Of course, if the drivers were actually distinguishable by name, it might also help.
A lot of people get a trend right but screw up on the timing. MS has a boatload of cash and is acquiring more every month. Until they go through a quarter with negative net cash flow, I wouldn't even start the MS death spiral countdown. Then, like Apple, they can go through a decade or more wearing the "doomed" moniker.
Nobody, not even the most rabid pro-life activist has ever held that breast cancer is solely caused by abortions, merely that abortion is one factor in raising risk.
From what I understand, these sorts of charges get levelled by both sides, depending on the administration's ideological color. It is just that right now, it's the liberal's turn and they have a bigger megaphone. Does anybody remember advocacy for masturbation under the Clinton administration and the furor that provoked? Each side twists things, that's the trouble with govt. funded science. Let's not delude ourselves that either side is 'pure'.
When the budget was balanced the Congress was controlled by those dastardly Republicans. The legislation needed to balance the budget had to originate (as per the Constitution) in the House of Representatives controlled then by those horrible Republicans. President Clinton, like all Presidents before him, has only limited control over whether there are deficits or not.
Re the defendent in the case, if you needed attractive defendents to properly establish constitutionality than Roe v. Wade would be illegitimate as would the Miranda decision. Throwing mud at a particular defendent in order to cast doubt as to constitutionality again makes me wonder as to your actual bar status.
Beyond that, the cite that I gave wasn't anything more than a listing of relevant State Constitutions. Are you claiming the cites are erroneous? No? Then you're an ass who is fast losing credibility.
Yes, the federal record is a bit weaker for the nullification case than the state record in the cited constitutions but you went out of your way to make broad claims that nullification simply didn't exist in current law (not federal law, current law period).
The thing that convinces me that nullification does exist on the federal level is that jurors are instructed that they must find defendants not guilty based on doubt but if there is no doubt they are not similarly instructed that they must convict if the evidence leaves no doubt in their mind. They are only instructed that they "should" convict. That, and the fact that nobody seems to have been accused of a violation of their juror's oath and prosecuted for such violation leads me to believe that the anti-nullification case is all bluster and noise, signifying nothing.
The question is whether those judges who have stated their opinions are stating constitutional ones.
You've retreated (silently, true) from the proposition that jury nullification is not supported in law to the idea that it is not supported in federal law.
If you would either assert that the Constitution (federal or state) grants rights (thus exposing you for a fool who doesn't understand our legal tradition at all) or demonstrate where these Constitutions which recognize jury nullification are overridden by superior Constitutional authority (not mere judicial assertion).
The judge doesn't have the right to just make stuff up. He has to base his decisions on some Constitutional text even if it's merely to override some 9th or 10th amendment unenumerated right. So far we've got nothing in the Constitutional text, merely judicial opinions that rest on air, and thus are illegitimate constitutional interpretation.
All you've described so far is legislating from the bench. A Constitutional support for the opinion you've cited wouldn't hurt what's left of your case.
The entire point of the powerful abusing the courts by burying their poorer opponents is that the fear of becoming destitute will lead to quick settlements without the bad publicity attending trial. Without the fear, the strategy loses its power. If you're going to get your money back after the big corporation loses, a lot more small companies and individuals will stand up for their rights because they get lots of good publicity, David and Goliath support and they get a realistic shot at their own payoff when they countersue after the spurious suit(s) fail(s).
Loser pays would not make a perfect world, merely a better one which is enough to nail down a particular variant and pass it ASAP.
Answer me this, what legal oaths are not subject to criminal proceedings when they are violated? If the violation of the oath is not punishable, why take an oath at all?
Why aren't we imprisoning jurors when they clearly are nullifying? Why aren't we giving jurors instructions that they *must* convict, rather that they *should* convict if the facts and law show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty? OTOH, jury instructions are that they *must* vote not guilty if there is reasonable doubt? Why is there a lack of symmetry? Could it be judicial recognition of nullification? I think it is.
You ask where it says that nullification is a right.
here is a court filing which includes the following informative paragraphs.
[CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR JURY NULLIFICATION:
The Constitutions of Maryland (Art. XXIII, entire), Indiana (Art. I, sec. 19), Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16), and Georgia (Art. I sec. 1, para. 11, subsec. A), currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law"; that is, to nullify the law. For example, the Georgia Constitution says: "In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial...and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts." Attorneys in Georgia and Indiana are able to request nullification instructions from the judge to the jury and generally receive them, and are sometimes able to argue the law. Twenty states currently include jury nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases: Alabama (Art. I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art. II, sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. I, sec. 6); Delaware (Art. I, sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, sec. 4); Mississippi (Art. 3, sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, sec. 6); New York (Art. I, sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Art. I, sec. 7); South Carolina (Art. I, sec. 16); South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, sec. 19); Texas (Art. I, sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 3); Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 20). Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, "as in all other cases." [Source: Alan W. Scheflin, "Jury Nullification: the Right to Say No", Southern California Law Review, 45, p. 204 (1972). This list has been updated to 1996.]
When there is division amongst the states on an important issue, trial judges often look to federal authorities for guidance, and such is instructive in this case. Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Sands, Siffert, Loughlin & Reis, Instruction 4-2) suggests that juries should be told that it is their "duty to acquit the defendant" if they harbor a reasonable doubt, however, rather than instruct juries that they have a corresponding "duty to convict," i.e., "must" convict if they are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the treatise recommends that juries be advised that they "should vote to convict: if the government has carried its burden (leaving a jury to conclude that it has the authority to nullify even in the absence of a reasonable doubt) [and our own federal district courts agree on this prerogative of the jury, see also, e.g., United States v. Will L. Dawson, and Derrick Termail Willis, Criminal Cause Numbers: IP 95-0064M-01-02, citing approvingly Beaver v. State, 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118 (1957) to the effect that "Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides that 'in all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.' However, jurors should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not act arbitrarily, capriciously, upon a whim or prejudice.] While logic would seem to dictate that a corollary obligation be imposed on jurors, it is reversible error to charge that the jury must explain their doubts ever since the ordeal of Edward Bushell and the Penn jury hereinabove.
The argument may or may not be persuasive to you that it is right, the listing of state constitutional clauses explicitly answers your question. Yes, jury nullification is recognized in law as a right of the people.
Now the question remains on the federal level whether it is a right. But rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized. Limitations on rights and governing powers are granted by the US Constitution. So now that we've established that nullification *does* exist as law and is a right of the people, does the US Constitution eliminate that right?
Now I ask you, where is it written?
Dougherty was cited at you elsewhere, you didn't bother to address it yet. Until you do, why waste time looking for more cites?
The Supreme Court may settle a question with a sense of finality but the constitutionality of something exists independently of whether the SC has decided on it or not. To argue otherwise makes me question your actual bar status.
The SC denies certiori in the vast majority of appeals. Are cases that appeals courts have determined a law unconstitutional moot merely because the SC denies cert? If a district or appeals court rules the same direction as a 9-0 majority would on the SC, most time's they're going to deny cert.
We (anglo-american common law jurisdictions) used to throw jurors in jail for refusing to convict. We don't do that any more. What else, besides a recognition of jury nullification, explains the cessation of the practice of imprisoning or otherwise punishing jurors?
As for having to lie to use nullification. I did not lie and have never done so when asked about nullification the two times I was called to jury duty. I was disqualified in NY and not disqualified in a Chicago trial (malpractice case). I actually served as foreman in the end. We voted not guilty, not on nullification grounds, the guy simply didn't deserve to get convicted though both side's lawyers were snakes and we all thoroughly detested them.
If the entire jury pool would all answer that they would exercise their right to jury nullification, eventually the judges and the lawyers would be forced to give up their practice of using their ability to dismiss jurors for answering honestly that they would not convict. I expect someday that this will happen but the suppression of the right does not nullify the right even as Bull Connor and his fire hose did not change the Constitution.
So there are potentially large financial risks associated with larger financial pay offs? Geez, you'd think they'd get 3rd parties to finance that. Or maybe those cases weren't so good and nobody else wanted to take the risk?
In this country the lawyers are flush with cash. If they could get a nice profit by acting as banks for plaintiffs who couldn't afford the bond, they'd do it. Then again, they'd only do it for the good cases, not the BS ones.
You're losing the point that if a rich entity goes after you right now, they can beggar you (as even powerful corporations have discovered). If you are made financially whole, the corporation financially loses but you do not.
On the other hand, while the number of cases going forward would go down, it's much more likely that the number of guilty verdicts would go up since plaintiffs would no longer be reckless gamblers aiming at blackmail by lawsuit and getting 'go away' settlements but people with serious issues who are willing to risk their own money to gain justice.
It would also have the effect of cutting down on useless, BS fishing expeditions because that would just raise the stakes by raising the legal bills all around.
I would say that it is one of the unenumerated rights of the people.
Yes jury nullification is a double edged sword. Then so is free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights. If we are to treat all double edged swords with suspicion, we might as well treat the entire Bill of Rights that way. Which one of them is not subject to being used badly? In fact which one of them (outside of Amendment III) has not been used badly?
No, clearly the KKK marching in Skokie should have as little impact on the 1st amendment as the racist southern nullifications of decades past. If it's not so, what legal reasoning justifies disparate treatment? Were the anti-federalists right when they said enumeration of a Bill of Rights would eventually eviscerate all rights of the people that didn't make the list?
Please, can you cite the penalty for breaking this law, when last someone was charged with violating this law or even what specific code is being violated? I know about the Penn trial and about various attempts in English law centuries ago that imprisoned jurors for failing to convict as the judge instructed them to but that's never been US jurisprudence AFAIK. Please feel free to cite a case...
Mistaken on history? Did the jury nullifications of Peter Zenger and William Penn just not happen?
Mistaken on philosophy? How can you be mistaken on philosophy? That's just stupid. You might have a different philosophy, you might wrongly describe a particular philosophy but to be mistaken on philosophy just isn't in the nature of the beast.
Mistaken on the law? Well, that may or may not be. A lot of people fall on either side of the question and case law has been cited on both sides.
Mistaken on spelling? Well yes, and what does that make you? A spelling nazi, a specific kind of slashdot low life.
"In the instant case, the defendants do not directly challenge the proposition that a juror's refusal to follow the court's instructions on the law may be a proper basis for removal under Rule 23(b)"
That's from your link. In other words, the defense didn't even bring up the point that jury nullification is a right, rather that the dismissal of the juror was unjustified on other grounds. It's quite easy to bash a position that wasn't even given a fair representation by any of the parties. As the defendents were given what they wanted (new trials) no further challenges would arise from this anyway so it was a neat opportunity to say whatever the judges wanted safe from review. The correctness of it is almost beyond the point. They were safe in shooting their mouth off against one of the most profound inconveniences for a judge, the ability, the right, of a jury to ignore the high and mighty and not just decide the facts but the justice of the law as well.
Whether this awesome power of the jury has been misused at time to provide injustice is absolutely irrelevant to the existence or inexistance of the right. If the bill of rights were held under the same standard, what would happen to free speech after the klan marched in Skokie, Penthouse put an illustration of a girl in a meatgrinder in its pages and other insults to good taste and good sense.
Is there any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that has not created a bad result some time during our history (OK, amendment 3 but that's never come under test in any circumstance). In reality, the idea of malignant nullification nullifying jury nullification is profoundly unamerican and the decision you cite while giving the correct result (new trials) uses aberrational logic and would not stand review.
Now I'm not a judge, but it's just unamerican to nullify a right of the people by the bad exercise of that right by some people. If that logic holds, you might as well use the Constitution as toilet paper because it wouldn't be worth a damn.
Then start electing more Republicans. The American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) is the lobby for those lawyers who love the situation. ATLA and the trial lawyers individually give their money 90% to Democrats and as a result the Democrat party is the biggest road block to enacting 'loser pays' reforms.
There has been actual US case law cited in this thread stating that juries have the right to nullify and none cited that they do not. Doesn't that put the burden of proof on those who deny jury nullification to come up with some real documentation supporting their position?
As was previously noted (thanks zeugma-amp), US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) and US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) both establish that juries have a right to nullify. Are you aware of any superior court which overturned these opinions or any actual case law subsequent to these decisions that overturned them?
If not, then jury nullification is as much the law of the land as any other judicial decision.
FIJA is something like the defense of marriage act. Nobody is claiming that marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman under current law yet the Congress passed such a law.
Here is an account of the Zenger trial. I highly recommend it and if you read the account carefully, you will find that no matter how 'fringe' a view jury nullification is without a doubt deeply embedded in the idea of the american jury trial.
You might want to look up the Peter Zenger case. The entire principle of press freedom was established via a case of jury nullification. The jury has a right to decide on both the facts and the law.
I've been called for jury duty in both NY and IL. Interestingly, in NY, they played a tape that went over the Peter Zenger case and its importance (though they did not use the words jury nullification). Then again, in answering the judge's question I answered that yes, I would nullify if I felt it was called for. The judge and both attorney's pulled me aside, grilled me to abandon my position and when I wouldn't, the judge used his option to disqualify me from trial.
In Illinois, there was no mention of jury nullification or the Zenger case, the judge went temporarily off the record and stated to the jury that they were not to judge the law (it was the only time during the proceedings he went off record). I again answered the question that yes, I would nullify but this time was not disqualified (perhaps the judge did not notice, perhaps not, he was asking us in a group of 12 to simultaneously answer). I ended up being jury foreman and we unanimously acquited (though not on nullification grounds the law was fine, the guy just wasn't guilty).
Well, that's my own personal experience. I hope it corrects your impression that the law is not up to the jury to decide. It is and it always has been.
I find it amazing that a jury deciding a case has less access to the text of the law than any convicted felon in the United States of America.
If the judge is elected, he needs to be recalled, if he's appointed he needs to be impeached.
Guess what, you don't need to answer that. I remember an article about garages as a key competitive advantage for the US (I believe it was Forbes). How many start up firms took advantage of cheap space and were launched merely because the garage made the money numbers work? It turns out that lots of firms started that way including Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Apple Computers.
Plentiful bandwidth is the next century's garage. It will permit an entire new generation of information technology start ups to create new solutions we can't even conceive of.