Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

Yep, and it is also a matter of law that you can not discharge a firearm
within the city limits.

Seems like someone is going to have to decide which law shall be
nullified.....now doesn't 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.

True, if so then it pretty much means my shooting was self defense.....but
it's still a violation of the law, otherwise why would I be in court on the
discharging a firearm within the city limits offense?


> >> >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?

Sorry, but it is allowed. Only you assert it isn't.

> Jon tried to explain
> it: a jury COULD nullify,

they can

> and not get caught with it,

they do, though it isn't necessary.

>but it is not only a
> violation of their oath,

Wrong. Show me where I am required to persecute a man for doing exactly what
I would have done in similar circumstances?

>but also not their purpose.

Actually, it is. Because if the only question was if the law was violated we
would hardly need a jury, would we?

It is because of these other issues which can result in nullification that
we have juries.

>  It certainly isn't
> their "right" even if it is somethign they can do and get away with.

Correct, it isn't their right.....it's their DUTY to nullify the charge is
there is any question about whether the person violated the law, the
legitimacy of the law, and/or the justice in enforcing that law given the
specific circumstances that existed in this instance.

I can understand why many lawyers don't like an informed jury, it helps you
railroad people into prison.


> >> 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.

Yes, it is.

>  Don't you think that if this was true a court would have
> made this proclamation sometime in our 200 years of jurisprudence?

Irrelevent. Whether a court has ever uttered this or not does not alter the
duties of a jury, or the reason for why we have juries.

> >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.

Ah, but it most certainly is. The validity of the law IS a factor that needs
to be considered by the jury.

> 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.

No, it is scary to a democracy that you expect people to uphold
Unconstitutional law.....

THAT is what is scary.

>  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.

Perhaps, but I may have the duty to nullify the next time I sit on a case
that is based on flawed law, or unjust enforcement.

> Have you ever been on a jury?

Yes.

>  Have you listened to the oath and the
> judge's instructions?

None of which prohibit me from finding the law invalid if it exists in
violation of Constitution standards.

If you think otherwise, please inform me of what part of the oath or
instructions requires me to ignore any Constitutional issues in my
deliberations.

>  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.

Yep, and if I doubt their comission of the crime, the validity of the law,
and/or the justice in enforcing that law under these circumstances, then I
shall hold out for a verdict of "Not guilty" as is my duty as an American,
and as a jurer.

> 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?

Personal feelings, so your answer is no.

Now, on the flip side of your question, let's say the law makes it illegal
for people of a certain race to sit anywhere but at the rear of a public
bus.....shall I convict because of the law or shall I note that racial
discrimination is in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America and thus that law is invalid?

No personal feelings in the matter, but simply the LAW. ALL of the law.

You seem to feel that my decisions to nullify are based on my personal
feelings, they aren't. They are based upon the law, and if I nullify a
charge it's because I consider it to be supported by the law and the basis
for law.

> Your
> definition of "nullification" seems to be "the jury can disregard the law,
> but only if it furthers my objectives, not theirs."

Wrong, but do keep playing with your straw, it shows how weak your position
is.


> >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).

Yes, there is. Much as you may hate it, there ARE other considerations that
the jury needs to consider.

> Listen to the oath jurors agree to.  If you can't abide by that oath,
> you're not qualified to be on a jury.

I have, and do, but nothing there stops me from nullifying a charge I fell
is unsupported by the evidence presented, is in violation of superior law,
or fails to meet the purpose of law which is justice.

> >>  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?

Your inability to answer is noted. Not that I really expected you to answer
since your answer would either support my argument or show that the
complaints against the legal system are fully justified.