Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:21:14 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >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.

No, it is NOT a "clear violation"  Self-defense is a legal, affirmative
defense.  As a matter of law you are entitled to defend yourself.  So its
a bad example.  Get it?

>
>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.

No.  It may not be up to the jury to decide whether it was self-defense.

>> >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.

How can the purpose be something that isn't allowed?  Jon tried to explain
it: a jury COULD nullify, and not get caught with it, but it is not only a
violation of their oath, but also not their purpose.  It certainly isn't
their "right" even if it is somethign they can do and get away with.

>
>> 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.

No, it isn't.  Don't you think that if this was true a court would have
made this proclamation sometime in our 200 years of jurisprudence?

>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.

Again, it's not your place as a jury to say what laws are valid and what
aren't.  
It's scary to a democracy and equal protection to know that 2 people doing
the same exact thing will have different consequences depending on whether
or not YOU are on their jury.  You may have the opportunity to nullify,
but it doesn't mean you have the right to - any more than a CFO has the
opportunity to embezzle corproate money, but not the right.

Have you ever been on a jury?  Have you listened to the oath and the
judge's instructions?  You MUST put aside your personal views of the law,
and be able to convict *if* guilt is proven to you beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Let's say I think men are superior to women, or some race is superior to
another.  Can I "nullify" someone's obvious guilt just because the
defendant is of my preferred status while the victim isn't?  Your
definition of "nullification" seems to be "the jury can disregard the law,
but only if it furthers my objectives, not theirs."


>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.

No, there isn't (except for the applicability of any available defenses). 
Listen to the oath jurors agree to.  If you can't abide by that oath,
you're not qualified to be on a jury.
>
>>  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?