Advocates
of jury nullification did their best to improve a bill expanding a jury's ability to nullify laws, but the bill won't be making it to a vote this session.
Not exact matches
For those who don't know what «
jury nullification» means, here's a quick and dirty definition: Finding someone innocent
of a crime despite the fact they are stone guilty simply because you don't agree with the law..
Yes, you put it in terms
of the «community conscience» ethical issue, which you put in terms
of jury nullification only, but that doesn't make it independent
of the adjudicative role.
While courts
do not acknowledge or encourage
jury nullification, judges take «no steps... to prevent jurors from nullifying, jurors are not subject to legal sanction for nullifying, and verdicts that are the result
of nullification are not subject to review» (Hreno, at para. 2)
«This Court has referred to the
jury's power to nullify as the citizen's ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement
of the law» and it has characterized the
jury nullification power as a safety valve for exceptional cases... [H] owever,... recognizing this reality that a
jury may nullify is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a
jury to ignore a law they
do not support or to tell a
jury that it has a right to
do so...
So much so that, six months ago, if you had said the words «
jury nullification» to me, my first response would have been that the power
of juries in this country is increasingly being nullified by settlements, plea bargaining, and anything
done to ensure that a case isn't presented to a dozen «wild card» members
of the citizenry.
The client might want the lawyer to make an argument that implies with dog whistle type statements that the victim was a gay Jewish black man who didn't deserve to live anyway, while the client was the descendant
of a plantation owner who was active protecting KKK interests in the county, and effectively nudge the
jury to engage in
jury nullification and acquit the client even if they believe that he is guilty.
However, rather than attempting to inform
juries of their ability to nullify, as the other measures reviewed in this post
did, this measure attempted to restrict the
nullification power
of juries by informing them
of a reason for which they may not nullify the law.
Read more about
jury protection for defendants in felon in possession and other firearms - related cases: — Georgia Judge Informs Jury of Mandatory Sentence — Jury Finds Man Not Guilty of Weapons Charge — Did The First Circuit Encourage Jury Nullification in Stolen Gun C
jury protection for defendants in felon in possession and other firearms - related cases: — Georgia Judge Informs
Jury of Mandatory Sentence — Jury Finds Man Not Guilty of Weapons Charge — Did The First Circuit Encourage Jury Nullification in Stolen Gun C
Jury of Mandatory Sentence —
Jury Finds Man Not Guilty of Weapons Charge — Did The First Circuit Encourage Jury Nullification in Stolen Gun C
Jury Finds Man Not Guilty
of Weapons Charge —
Did The First Circuit Encourage
Jury Nullification in Stolen Gun C
Jury Nullification in Stolen Gun Case?
Function
of Juries & History
of Jury Nullification & Jurors
Doing Justice &
Jury Nullification Kirsten Tynan 17 Feb 2014
He writes in part: Viewpoint:
Juries should be told
of nullification What most people
do not know is that a juror has the right to nullify any law that they deem wrong or unconstitutional on any -LSB-...]
Professor Paul Butler
does a great job discussing the power
of jurors conscientiously to say Not Guilty, even if the law was technically broken, in this NPR interview spurred by the billboards placed in Washington, D.C.
Jury Nullification: Acquitting Based on Principle In response to former prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer's argument against jury nullification, Butler says: -LSB-
Jury Nullification: Acquitting Based on Principle In response to former prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer's argument against jury nullification, Butler sa
Nullification: Acquitting Based on Principle In response to former prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer's argument against
jury nullification, Butler says: -LSB-
jury nullification, Butler sa
nullification, Butler says: -LSB-...]
It strikes me that the military
jury DID indeed engage in a form
of jury nullification.
Jury nullification in the broader sense can cause cases to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal for reasons # 4 or # 5, but most of the time, jury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verd
Jury nullification in the broader sense can cause cases to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal for reasons # 4 or # 5, but most
of the time,
jury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verd
jury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that
jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verd
jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a
jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verd
jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility
of the witnesses differently than the actual
jury did could have reached the same verd
jury did could have reached the same verdict.
Doesn't a
Jury Nullification always result in a verdict
of not guilty?
Jury nullification is one
of those kinds
of things in life where, «if you have to ask, it means that you can't
do it.»
Nullification is the right
juries have to return an acquittal even in the face
of overwhelming evidence
of guilt simply because the jurors don't think that law should exist (they refuse to follow (i.e. nullify) the law with their decision).
Viewing
jury instructions this way I think would mean that it is part
of the role
of the
jury to determine which parts
of the
jury instructions should be considered fact, and I think it would also mean that
jury nullification wouldn't necessarily mean that a
jury returns «a verdict
of «Not Guilty» despite its belief that the defendant is guilty
of the violation charged»; it could just mean that the
jury doesn't accept all
of the statements in the
jury instructions, such as the judge's interpretation
of the law, as fact.