I helped set a guilty man free

[General Specific]

Ok, I hadn't really mentioned it here, but all this week, I have been in jury duty at the county courthouse. I was selected as a juror in an armed robbery trial. There was lots of evidence presented and testimony and all that and I am not going to go into the specifics of it. Suffice to say that we ended the trial today with a verdict of Not Guilty. Now, that being said, everyone of us jurors thought that the defendant was in fact Guilty. We rendered the verdict due to a lack of evidence by the state. They didn't have the money from the robbery, they didn't have a bullet that was fired during the event, they only had circumstantial evidence at best and the testimony of a drug dealer and accomplice placing the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery.

We found out after the verdict that the defendant is being sent for another armed robbery trial in another county. They were needing to secure some of the evidence in this trail for use in that one. I can only imagine that meant the same gun was used in both.

So, I know he is guilty of the crime we acquitted him of. I know that the verdict we gave was the correct one with the evidence we were given and that we did our job as jurors. Why do I feel so bad about it? Why can't I stop thinking about everything? I know that man is in custody and will go to another trial, but I can't help feeling that I have made my town a little less safe by letting him go free.

 

[makare]

You did the right thing. As much as you'd like to believe he is guilty, and yeah he probably is, we can't let the state slide on presenting their case. That would just give them too much power. I know it still doesn't make you feel any better here and now but in the long run, maintaining that high standard for the prosecution helps everyone.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I don't really know. I guess I'd feel exactly like you. He's guilty, but yes, the onus is on us to do the right thing with the case provided. As makare said, we have to maintain our standards for prosecution. Frustrating but hopefully the other trial will be more damning to him.

 

[bigcountry23]

Gotta love our legal system...

 

[drifter]

I once helped send a guilty boy to jail. Didn't make me feel any better about it, even though I know he deserved it.

I'd also agree with makare; once you start deciding who's guilty irrespective of the facts presented, well, that's a mighty slippery slope.

 

[phil]

You don't know he was guilty though, you're just pretty sure he was guilty. The prosecution has to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it and they were not able to do that. You don't have to feel bad about anything.

 

[Tinwhistler]

not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Only beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can still convict someone if you have some niggling little doubts, so long as the state has made a pretty good case against the defendant.

The word of a drug dealer alone doesn't quite cross that threshold, in my opinion.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

The word of any witness alone is a poor basis, from what I've heard.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

 

[makare]

You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

What? The jury does not get to decide what is constitutional or not that is the supreme court's job.

Wait I will edit this to add that this is in the US anyway. I mean really the average juror doesn't know what constitutional means let alone what is IN the constitution.

 

[Officer_Charon]

As we so often have to tell ourselves on the street, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. As you said, you didn't acquit based on the defendant, you acquitted based on the lack of evidence. Had he been convicted, it's something that some hot-shot attorney or some rookie out to make a name for himself would have championed as a way to make themselves famous. All it would take is for afore-mentioned bloodsuc- ahem - attorney to examine the verdict and realize he had a shot at overturning a conviction, and y'all's deliberation suddenly has the value of horse apples on a sidewalk.

You retained personal integrity and were able to look beyond your personal opinions and focus on the case. Which is why they paid you the lordly sum that they did. *rolls eyes*

 

[CrimsonSoul]

You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

What? The jury does not get to decide what is constitutional or not that is the supreme court's job.

Wait I will edit this to add that this is in the US anyway. I mean really the average juror doesn't know what constitutional means let alone what is IN the constitution.[/QUOTE]

A jury in the US does have the right and the responsibility to find a defendant not guilty if the law that the defendant broke is unconstitutional! Look at it this way, for instance, what if saying the word "Um" was against the law and punishable by a fine/jail time/whatever. This is protected under free speech but the defendant is still charged with saying the word "um." Did he break the law by saying the word "Um," yes he did, but infringing on his speech is against the constitution so the jury *should* come back with a not guilty verdict. That is why we have a double jepordy rule so that if one jury finds the defendant not guilty the state can't keep retrying him until they get the verdict they want, the juries verdict is final. I will edit when I find my sources.

 

[makare]

You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

What? The jury does not get to decide what is constitutional or not that is the supreme court's job.

Wait I will edit this to add that this is in the US anyway. I mean really the average juror doesn't know what constitutional means let alone what is IN the constitution.[/QUOTE]

A jury in the US does have the right and the responsibility to find a defendant not guilty if the law that the defendant broke is unconstitutional! Look at it this way, for instance, what if saying the word "Um" was against the law and punishable by a fine/jail time/whatever. This is protected under free speech but the defendant is still charged with saying the word "um." Did he break the law by saying the word "Um," yes he did, but infringing on his speech is against the constitution so the jury *should* come back with a not guilty verdict. That is why we have a double jepordy rule so that if one jury finds the defendant not guilty the state can't keep retrying him until they get the verdict they want, the juries verdict is final. I will edit when I find my sources.[/QUOTE]

Ok. I have never heard anything like that before. I've always learned that it is the realm of the appellate and the supreme courts to make those kind of distinctions. I do know that that has nothing to do with double jeopardy. I am pretty excited to see these sources.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

It's called Jury Nullification and was decided in Georigia vs Brailsford in 1794 when Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

definition of Jury Nullification: Jury's decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case.

 

[makare]

It's called Jury Nullification and was decided in Georigia vs Brailsford in 1794 when Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

definition of Jury Nullification: Jury's decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case.

That has nothing to do with deciding a charge is unconstitutional. A jury does not get to do that. Also, that particular case has been given so much negative treatment it doesn't even matter anymore.

And if the jury decides something not based on the facts they will just call a mistrial and try him again.

And the legal definition

jury nullification. A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

 

[Cajungal]

If the evidence, or lack thereof, left room for reasonable doubt, then you just did what you had to do. Try not to feel bad. :\ Can you imagine if we just started going with our guts for cases like that?

 

[CrimsonSoul]

It's called Jury Nullification and was decided in Georigia vs Brailsford in 1794 when Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

definition of Jury Nullification: Jury's decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case.

That has nothing to do with deciding a charge is unconstitutional. A jury does not get to do that. Also, that particular case has been given so much negative treatment it doesn't even matter anymore.

And if the jury decides something not based on the facts they will just call a mistrial and try him again.[/QUOTE


That's not a mistrial, a mistrial is An invalid trial, caused by fundamental error. When a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again from the selection of the jury.

An erroneous trial on account of some defect in the persons trying, such as if the jury come from the wrong county or because there was no issue formed, as if no plea be entered; or some other defect of jurisdiction.

 

[makare]

It's called Jury Nullification and was decided in Georigia vs Brailsford in 1794 when Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

definition of Jury Nullification: Jury's decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case.

That has nothing to do with deciding a charge is unconstitutional. A jury does not get to do that. Also, that particular case has been given so much negative treatment it doesn't even matter anymore.

And if the jury decides something not based on the facts they will just call a mistrial and try him again.[/QUOTE


That's not a mistrial, a mistrial is An invalid trial, caused by fundamental error. When a mistrial is declared, the trial must start again from the selection of the jury.

An erroneous trial on account of some defect in the persons trying, such as if the jury come from the wrong county or because there was no issue formed, as if no plea be entered; or some other defect of jurisdiction.[/QUOTE]

Jury misconduct leads to a mistrial. Which is what jury nullification would be.

 

[Tinwhistler]

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
​

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

 

[makare]

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
​

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

Also subsequently received negative treatment and isn't considered good law. Cases do not stand alone they are part of a system of cases that make the law. These ones are not good law.


Also, none of this has to do with constitutionality.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I'm not speaking about constitutionality, but rather jury nullification. Juries can't declare a law unconstitutional. But if they feel the law is injust, they can certainly acquit, even with overwhelming evidence of guilt. I believe this is more what CrimsonSoul meant, rather than the ability to strike down a law, and he just wasn't making himself very clear.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Do juries have the right to nullify? Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of \\"Not Guilty,\\" that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the \\"double jeopardy\\" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: \\"You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law].\\" In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=+2][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=+2][FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica] Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[makare]

What you just posted seems to support my assertions more than crimson soul's. Juries can nullify but it is not a good or well supported practice and it CAN, often does, lead to mistrial if they refuse to apply the law because it would constitute juror misconduct.

here's something to think about-

If a white man killed a black man and there was ample evidence to support his conviction, but the jury, for whatever reason, thought it was ok for a black man to be killed so they came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Do you think that a judge, acting properly mind you, would let that stand?

 

[Philosopher B.]

For some reason, every time I think of jury duty, I think of that Dilbert comic where the guy tried to get out of it by saying according to his religion 'Only God may judge'. But anyway, yeah, stuff like this is why jury duty wigs me out, but somebody's gotta do it I guess. Sounds like you did the best you could.

 

[Skinny Santa]

In cases of obvious jury racism or prejudice a Judge does have a right to overturn a conviction.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I love that episode of 30 Rock where Liz gets out of jury duty by wearing a Princess Leia costume and claiming she can read minds.

 

[Tinwhistler]

What you just posted seems to support my assertions more than crimson soul's. Juries can nullify but it is not a good or well supported practice and it CAN, often does, lead to mistrial if they refuse to apply the law because it would constitute juror misconduct.

here's something to think about-

If a white man killed a black man and there was ample evidence to support his conviction, but the jury, for whatever reason, thought it was ok for a black man to be killed so they came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Do you think that a judge, acting properly mind you, would let that stand?

I think that would be a proper angle for a prosecutor to take to the appellate courts.

 

[makare]

What you just posted seems to support my assertions more than crimson soul's. Juries can nullify but it is not a good or well supported practice and it CAN, often does, lead to mistrial if they refuse to apply the law because it would constitute juror misconduct.

here's something to think about-

If a white man killed a black man and there was ample evidence to support his conviction, but the jury, for whatever reason, thought it was ok for a black man to be killed so they came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Do you think that a judge, acting properly mind you, would let that stand?

I think that would be a proper angle for a prosecutor to take to the appellate courts.[/QUOTE]

And they would declare a mistrial and then reverse and remand for new trail. TADAHH

 

[Tinwhistler]

What you just posted seems to support my assertions more than crimson soul's. Juries can nullify but it is not a good or well supported practice and it CAN, often does, lead to mistrial if they refuse to apply the law because it would constitute juror misconduct.

here's something to think about-

If a white man killed a black man and there was ample evidence to support his conviction, but the jury, for whatever reason, thought it was ok for a black man to be killed so they came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Do you think that a judge, acting properly mind you, would let that stand?

I think that would be a proper angle for a prosecutor to take to the appellate courts.[/QUOTE]

And they would declare a mistrial and then reverse and remand for new trail. TADAHH[/QUOTE]

I wish I was psychic enough to know how cases would go before they were tried. I could probably figure out a way to make some money off of that, somehow

 

[makare]

What you just posted seems to support my assertions more than crimson soul's. Juries can nullify but it is not a good or well supported practice and it CAN, often does, lead to mistrial if they refuse to apply the law because it would constitute juror misconduct.

here's something to think about-

If a white man killed a black man and there was ample evidence to support his conviction, but the jury, for whatever reason, thought it was ok for a black man to be killed so they came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Do you think that a judge, acting properly mind you, would let that stand?

I think that would be a proper angle for a prosecutor to take to the appellate courts.[/QUOTE]

And they would declare a mistrial and then reverse and remand for new trail. TADAHH[/QUOTE]

I wish I was psychic enough to know how cases would go before they were tried. I could probably figure out a way to make some money off of that, somehow [/QUOTE]

Stare decisis bitch. It's how we roll yo! :rockon:

 

[Chazwozel]

I got out of jury duty once by telling them I was prejudice against all races ala Homer Simpson. Worked like a charm.

 

[Philosopher B.]

I got out of jury duty once by telling them I was prejudice against all races ala Homer Simpson. Worked like a charm.

Wow. Sounds pretty easy.

I think my mother used to get out of it by spinning bullshit about how she was busy homeschooling. As if she didn't have buckets of free time.

 

[Tinwhistler]

I got out of jury duty once because I told them that my uncle was a cop,a nd that I personally knew a lot of cops, and that because of that, I felt a lot of cops were crooked and liars. A trial based on a simple "he said/she said" argument, a cop's sole word would lead me to voting 'not guilty' every time, because a cop's word was no better than the word from any other random stranger on the streets, as far as I was concerned.

The judge thought I was a bit of a prick, but I got out of service.

 

[makare]

Why do you want to get out of jury duty?
I would love it! Sadly I will probably never get to serve.

 

[Shakey]

I've never had jury duty. I feel left out. I want to decide someones fate.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Much as jury duty wigs me out, I must confess, I'm sort of curious to have the experience.