Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:21:14 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:01:46 GMT, John Husvar
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Just a question--
>> >
>> >Whatever one might wish to call it; jury nullification, jury veto, jury
>> >pardon, jury stupidity, jury wisdom, or jury whatdaheck, Isn't it true
>> >that a jury in a criminal trial can present a verdict of Not Guilty for
>> >any reason or none without explanation?
>> >
>> >If anybody _would_ ask, the best answer would seem to be: "I just think
>> >the prosecution did not prove its case."
>> >
>> >Whatever any instructions to the jury, a jury's Not Guilty verdict
>> >stands, doesn't it?
>>
>> That is true.  The "Double Jeopardy" clause of the Constitution
>> guarantees that right to the defendant, thus, by implication, gives
>> that power to the jury.  It does not follow that it is a jury's
>> "right" to engage in "nullification," that is, LYING about their state
>> of mind concerning the defendant's guilt. But remember that doubting a
>> defendant's guilt, without any articulable or identifiable reason for
>> doubting it, is not "nullification."
>
>On the contrary, the jury can have absolutely no doubts whatsoever about the
>defendant's guilt.....however, they certain can have doubts about the
>validity of the law and/or the justice of applying that law in those
>particular circumstances.
>
>For example, I'm confronted with a known murderer who is threatening me. I
>pull my gun and fire in self defense.
>
>Now, I am charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm within the city
>limits.
>
>Is there any question about my guilt? No

Yes, there is.  Self-defense is an inherent right.  You picked a bad
example.

>
>However, is it fair to punish me for defending myself? No, probably not.
>
>So the law, it's validity and justice are just areas to question, and while
>a juror may not wish to articulate or identify why he chose to find "not
>guilty" is not the same as saying he can't articulate or identify the
>reason. Frankly the juror needs explain nothing, articulate nothing,
>identify nothing, and certainly not to justify their decision.

I disagree with you.  Legally.  The jury has the power to engage in
nullification, not the legal right  Remember that true nullification
involves LYING about their state of mind.  There is no inherent
abstract legal right to "nullify" the law.  If a person cannot answer,
if asked, that he will render a true verdict regardless of whether he
disagrees with the law, he is legally unqualified to be a juror in
that case.  If he lies about it, he commits a crime.  Can he nullify,
get away with it, and be morally right in doing so under certain
circumstances?  Yeah.  So what?  Can he nullify and be morally
unjustified?  Yup.  System ain't perfect.  Better than the alternative
of making juries justify their acquittals.  Not right.  Just lesser of
evils.

- Jon Beaver