Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Wrong, it is the perfect example. After all does my self defense in any
manner mean I did NOT violate the law in this action?

Nope, a clear violation.

Simply shows that the law is written for general situations, and that the
jury needs to examine the particulars of any case to see if the "cookie
cutter" actually matches up with the reality of any individual case.


> >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

On the contrary, the entire purpose of the jury is nullification and given
the legal right to a jury, the jury has the legal right to nullify if they
chose.

> Remember that true nullification
> involves LYING about their state of mind.

Wrong.

> There is no inherent
> abstract legal right to "nullify" the law.

On the contrary, that is the entire purpose behind having a jury.

>  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.

I don't disagree with the law. If a law is in violation of the Constitution,
I'm not in disagreement with the law even if I feel a particular statute
having the form of law is wrong. Nor am I in disagreement with the law if I
feel the application of the law in the particular circumstances I'm asked to
judge is unfair and not just. So I can answer your question with the
absolute truth and still engage in jury nullification.

>  If he lies about it, he commits a crime.

If he lies, but he doesn't have to. A person can render a true verdict even
if they disagree with the law, if their verdict isn't dependent upon their
disagreement with the law.

For example. I am asked to sit on a jury in federal court for a drug
possession charge. A law I disagree with by the way as stupid, useless and
utterly unenforceable. Does my disagreement with the law alter my verdict?
Not in the least, because I simply note the law does not grant to the
federal government any power to regulate drug ownership, possession, etc as
per the Constitution of the United States of America, and as such I render a
verdict of "Not guilty". Why can I render that verdict despite a clear
violation of federal law? Because that law is in my opinion not in
compliance with the supreme law of the land which governs what powers the
federal government has. Now, if you could get an Amendment passed granting
to government the power to regulate these drugs as was done with alcohol,
then even given my disagreement with the law I would have to render a
verdict of "Guilty" because my earlier objection would no longer be valid,
the federal government, now, would have such a power.

So I hate to burst your bubble, but one can nullify without having to lie,
if nullification means rendering a "not guilty" ruling despite a clear
violation of the law as charged. Because there is more to question than the
simple question of whether a particular statute was violated.

>  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.

Agreed, the jury should never need to justify their decision. Nor should
someone be kept of a jury simply because they know the statues being charged
are in violation of higher law. Which is, IMO, the general attempt of the
question you reference.

Heck, I note even you would probably nullify the law since according to you
I have the right to defend myself....even if it means breaking the law.

So let's ask you point blank. I have done as I've indicated, there is
nothing in question, there is no doubt. I broke the law against discharging
a firearm within the city limits. Do you convict and punish me for
exercising my right to self defense, or do you nullify the charge and allow
me to walk free despite my clear violation of the law?

Would your verdict mean you lied when asked if your disagreement with the
law would impact your verdict?