Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"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?
>
> No.  It's clearly established that self defense is a *justification*
> defense.

Oh, so what you are saying is that because I fired in self defense the jury
is *justified* in nullifying the charge brought against me because of my
clear violation of the law?

Seems you simply can't avoid that issue. The law was broken, you are asking
the jury to nullify the charge by IGNORING the law.

> What that means is that a law was violated, but under the law,
> the violation is justified in that situation, so that the person is not
> guilty.  As a matter of law.

Really? Please point me to the statute in law which establishes that I can
break the law as long as I feel justified in any particular situation.

Oh, and to help you out, my state of residence is Virginia. So feel free to
show me this statute you refer to. Otherwise what you are refering to is the
simple fact that it is a well established principle that the jury will tend
to nullify such charges because the charges being brough are not a fair and
just application of the law. In short NULLIFICATION.

 >> >>
> >> >> 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?
>
> We would still need a jury.  Because virtually everyone would agree that
> under the prosecution's theory of what occurred, the person is guilty, but
> under the defendant's version, the person is innocent.  So the point of a
> jury is not so much to decide legal guilt, but to decide which set of
> facts - which side's story - they believe.

Ah, the judge can do that, and far more competently than a random bunch of
amateurs. However, seems that the people had problems with judges making
this judgement based ONLY upon the violation of the law, and it tended to
get people really upset.

Ref. American revolution and Declaration of Independence.


> >> 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.
>
> Marbury v. Madison, for starters.  Only courts can decide what's
> unconstitutional.

Excuse me, but that is bullshit. Your reference for this power is a court
case in which the court assumes this power out of thin air. Sorry, but the
9th and 10th Amendments clearly establish that the federal government (and
that includes the entire federal court system ) can NOT assume
powers......or doesn't the Constitution mean anything to lawyers?

So unless you can show me where such a power is granted within the
Constitution, then I'm going to have to remain of the mind that the Courts
have no such power no matter what they assert.

> Each person cannot decide for themselves whether they
> believe a law to be constitutional or not.

On the contrary, they most certainly can....and is among the reasons we have
a jury.

> >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.
>
> But thinking there is no "justice in enforcing the law under these
> circumstances" (your words) is also just personal feelings.

True, but is based not upon any disagreement with the law, but solely upon
the circumstances of the case.

For example, discharging a firearm within city limits during an act of self
defense. The law says I can't because the law establishes NOT exemption to
discharging a firearm within city limits. In fact a strict and literal
reading of the law would establish that you could act in self defense as
long as you don't fire your weapon. Except that people feel that applying
that law in such cases is normally not a fair and just application of the
law, and this despite the fact that most people also are in agreement with
that law. Seems they rule upon the circumstances of the case, not because of
any disagreement with the law.


>   What if I
> think it's OK to rape women?  Or to kill people of a certain race?  What
> if I think that under those circumstances, the crimes are justified and
> there should be no punishment?

Then you better hope that 12 people feel the same.

>  One of the problems of nullification is
> that there is no containing it.  If a jury can nullify for your reasons,
> they can nullify for any reason at all.

BINGO!

You've finally come to understand. However, there is some control on the
system. They must agree, otherwise it goes back for another pass. So either
you manage to get 12 people to agree that you were justified, or you rot in
jail. So if you decide to rape women, or kill people of a certain race, you
better hope that 12 random people agree with your "justification".

So despite your implication, there is some inherent control, because
generally people are not willing to condon certain behaviors.


> >
> >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?
>
> That issue would be ruled on by a judge, long before the case got to a
jury.

Yep, he could throw out the case, and that is ALL he could do. Otherwise the
jury WILL get to decide.

Of course, I note you once again avoid answering the question and assert
that you wouldn't need to decide the issue.

I'm asking you as a person sitting on a jury with such a case what your
verdict would be. Don't evade the issue, answer me. It's real simple. Do you
convict because they broke the law, or do you nullify the law because you
judge that particular law to be inconsistent with the Constitution?

Why is it you can never answer? Is it because it would show the flaw in your
entire arguement? Seems like it.


> >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.
>
> You said it yourself.  As long as "justice" can be a basis for
> nullification, each person who has their own concept of "justice" can have
> their own reasons for nullification.  There's no end point.

Yep, but what you seem to overlook is that all 12 have to agree. Seems they
are going to have to reach an agreement on their concept for "justice" and
strangely in most cases they are able to do so.