Search forums

Forums

Export thread

I helped set a guilty man free

Mar 31, 2010#1

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.

Mar 31, 2010#2

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.

Mar 31, 2010#3

Garbledina

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.

Mar 31, 2010#4

bigcountry23

Gotta love our legal system...

Mar 31, 2010#5

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.

Mar 31, 2010#6

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.

Mar 31, 2010#7

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.

Mar 31, 2010#8

Kitty Sinatra

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

Mar 31, 2010#9

CrimsonSoul

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

Mar 31, 2010#10

makare

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

Mar 31, 2010#11

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*

Mar 31, 2010#12

CrimsonSoul

makare1;363858][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#13

makare

CrimsonSoul;363866][QUOTE=makare1;363858][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

Mar 31, 2010#14

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.

Mar 31, 2010#15

makare

CrimsonSoul said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#16

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?

Mar 31, 2010#17

CrimsonSoul

makare1;363876][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#18

makare

CrimsonSoul;363882][QUOTE=makare1;363876][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#19

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."

Mar 31, 2010#20

makare

Tinwhistler said:
- 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.

Mar 31, 2010#21

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]

Mar 31, 2010#22

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?

Mar 31, 2010#23

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.

Mar 31, 2010#24

Skinny Santa

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

Mar 31, 2010#25

Garbledina

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.

Mar 31, 2010#26

Tinwhistler

makare1 said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#27

makare

Tinwhistler;363934][QUOTE=makare1 said:
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

Mar 31, 2010#28

Tinwhistler

makare1;363937][QUOTE=Tinwhistler;363934][QUOTE=makare1 said:
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

Mar 31, 2010#29

makare

Tinwhistler;363946][QUOTE=makare1;363937][QUOTE=Tinwhistler;363934][QUOTE=makare1 said:
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?

[/QUOTE]

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

Mar 31, 2010#30

Chazwozel

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

Mar 31, 2010#31

Philosopher B.

Chazwozel said:
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.

Mar 31, 2010#32

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.

Mar 31, 2010#33

makare

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

Mar 31, 2010#34

Shakey

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

Mar 31, 2010#35

Philosopher B.

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

Mar 31, 2010#36

Chazwozel

makare1 said:
Why do you want to get out of jury duty?
I would love it! Sadly I will probably never get to serve.

Cause unlike you, us normal people have better things to do. I for one have SCIENCE to do!

Mar 31, 2010#37

makare

It's fine... it's fine.. I'll get to serve in court someday.. just not as a juror. :biggrin:

Mar 31, 2010#38

Tinwhistler

I didn't 'want' to get out of jury duty. I get paid salary, so it wouldn't have bothered me to serve.

However, the case in question, the only evidence was the testimony of the officer. They specifically asked if we could convict based solely on his testimony and no other evidence. And I didn't feel that I could.

Mar 31, 2010#39

Chazwozel

makare1 said:
It's fine... it's fine.. I'll get to serve in court someday.. just not as a juror. :biggrin:

Say hi to your new boss

Mar 31, 2010#40

makare

Hmm, well as long as I no longer have to live on potatoes....

Mar 31, 2010#41

Null

GS, you followed your legal and moral obligation. The state didn't prove the case. You didn't find him 'Innocent', you found him 'Not (proven) Guilty'. That's a significant difference.

Mar 31, 2010#42

Chazwozel

makare1 said:
Hmm, well as long as I no longer have to live on potatoes....

You can have it all, and all at the low low price of your SOUL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apr 1, 2010#43

bhamv3

Benjamin Franklin said:
It is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer

I've always wanted to use that quote.

Apr 1, 2010#44

@Li3n

Chazwozel;363974][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Hmm, well as long as I no longer have to live on potatoes....

You can have it all, and all at the low low price of your SOUL!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

What does a soul do anyway?!

Nothing, that's what... so it sound like a sweet deal to me.

Apr 1, 2010#45

Dave

I would do jury duty in a heartbeat. But I have never been called.

Apr 1, 2010#46

Cajungal

^I'd also love to. But same thing, never been called.

Apr 1, 2010#47

phil

I can't imagine anything worse than jury duty. I hate listening to people drone on and on to start with, but I also can't imagine a case I'd want to be a jury member on. I mean, you might get one where the guy is accused of peeing in public or something which would just feel like a waste of time, but you might also get the murder trial of the decade and have to basically decide if this guy is going to live or die.

Apr 1, 2010#48

Chazwozel

phil said:
I can't imagine anything worse than jury duty. I hate listening to people drone on and on to start with, but I also can't imagine a case I'd want to be a jury member on. I mean, you might get one where the guy is accused of peeing in public or something which would just feel like a waste of time, but you might also get the murder trial of the decade and have to basically decide if this guy is going to live or die.

Murder trial of the decade = case that will never end =

Apr 1, 2010#49

Necronic

Don't sweat it too much. You did your job. Now its time for the Star Chamber to do theirs.

Apr 1, 2010#50

ThatNickGuy

Don't worry, I know a guy who'll get justice...

...um....

Apr 1, 2010#51

Chazwozel

Holy fucking shit!

Apr 1, 2010#52

Officer_Charon

Who's never got to serve jury duty for the rest of his life?

<----- This guy! *grins*

Apr 1, 2010#53

Frankie Williamson

Officer_Charon said:
Who's never got to serve jury duty for the rest of his life?

<----- This guy! *grins*

/high five.

Though I do have to show up for court like twice a week.

Apr 1, 2010#54

Officer_Charon

Frankie said:
Though I do have to show up for court like twice a week.

Only twice? You lucky bastard. Depending on how my arrests have been, I can have Domestic (Mon-AM) Felony arraignment(Mon-PM), miscellaneous misdemeanors (Tues-Thursday) City/County Ordinances (Thursday-AM) DUI Court (Thurs-PM)... and misdemeanor court is always the worst... I go, I sit there and wait to be called, I FINALLY get called. I stand, and VERY VERY rarely do I have to provide testimony. *rolls eyes* Oh well, it's $30 a day + comp. time. I'll take it. *grins*

Apr 1, 2010#55

makare

I also just realized that "I helped set a guilty man free" sounds like lyrics to a country song.

Apr 1, 2010#56

Cajungal

"After my dog died and my baby left me and took the john deere..."

Apr 1, 2010#57

Officer_Charon

Cajungal said:
"After my dog died and my baby left me and took the john deere..."

Fookin' ninja'd! *bows*

Apr 1, 2010#58

Frankie Williamson

Officer_Charon;364591][QUOTE=Frankie said:
Though I do have to show up for court like twice a week.

Apr 1, 2010#59

Officer_Charon

That would help, yes. That'd be like me going down to Ludowici. "Where?" Exactly.

Apr 2, 2010#60

Frankie Williamson

High Level.

In wonderful northern swampish Alberta, home of oil sands and drug abuse.

Apr 2, 2010#61

Iaculus

Chazwozel said:
Holy fucking shit!

You're the one fanboying over Frank at the back, aren't you?

Apr 2, 2010#62

D

Dubyamn

makare1;363858][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

makare1 said:
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.

Where on earth did you get this idea? Nobody can overrule a jury after they have set down their verdict. Even if more evidence comes forward the state can't set aside a jury verdict of not guilty because he didn't commit the crime. Prosecutors can't even bring up facts from the case because according to the court there is no way he could have committed that crime.

Mistrial and try again? No a jury declaration of not guilty is the final word in the case.

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.

Yeap.

Apr 2, 2010#63

CynicismKills

I can't imagine ever wanting to do jury duty. I "got lucky" and after being selected I was laid up with the flu. I did two days on a drunk driving case. Boring waste of time and on top of that missed two days of work. I hope I never get called again.

Apr 2, 2010#64

makare

Dubyamn;364957][QUOTE=makare1;363858][QUOTE=CrimsonSoul said:
You also have the responsibility to find the defendant not guilty if you feel the law that he broke is unconstitutional

makare1 said:
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.

Yeap.[/QUOTE]

I did not say that jury nullification does not happen I said it is a bad practice and is not encouraged. The jury is not the place to decide if an issue is constitutional which is what we were discussing. If the jury refuses to try the case on the law and there is obvious jury misconduct it wasn't a fair trial. That isn't the same as saying a jury found him not guilty so state go find more evidence which is where the double jeopardy would apply. I am talking about instances of obvious misbehavior by the jury or bias by the jury. i am not saying that we can just assume misconduct and throw it out. If the state appeals a conviction and the court decides later there was jury misconduct it will be reversed and remanded and will not be used as future legal precedent. If at trial the jury refuses to follow the law the judge does have discretion.

Apr 2, 2010#65

Chazwozel

LAW NERD FIGHT!

Apr 2, 2010#66

makare

My lack of soul is greater than his lack of soul!

However, I will concede that what he is saying is mostly true but I just don't think I have made my argument very clear that's all. I blame brain frying and imagining Dave naked.

Apr 2, 2010#67

Philosopher B.

makare1 said:
I blame brain frying and imagining Dave naked.

The way those hooties flap in the breeze is pretty distracting.

Apr 2, 2010#68

makare

Philosopher B.;365231][QUOTE=makare1 said:
I blame brain frying and imagining Dave naked.

The way those hooties flap in the breeze is pretty distracting.[/QUOTE]

And the skin so pasty..... so very very pasty!

Apr 2, 2010#69

Hailey Knight

For those besides makare who say they want to do jury duty--I read and listen to court tapes and transcripts all day. It's not like on TV. It's very, very boring, even if the case content itself is interesting.

Apr 2, 2010#70

CrimsonSoul

escushion said:
For those besides makare who say they want to do jury duty--I read and listen to court tapes and transcripts all day. It's not like on TV. It's very, very boring, even if the case content itself is interesting.

I wouldn't actively try to get out of it, but I wouldn't actively try to get in it, either

Apr 3, 2010#71

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
I did not say that jury nullification does not happen I said it is a bad practice and is not encouraged. The jury is not the place to decide if an issue is constitutional which is what we were discussing. If the jury refuses to try the case on the law and there is obvious jury misconduct it wasn't a fair trial.

They don't decide if the law is constitutional. They do nothing more than decide the case in front of them.

And no it isn't misconduct if the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict according to decades of precedent the jury is absolutely correct when they hand down a not guilty verdict.

That isn't the same as saying a jury found him not guilty so state go find more evidence which is where the double jeopardy would apply. I am talking about instances of obvious misbehavior by the jury or bias by the jury. i am not saying that we can just assume misconduct and throw it out. If the state appeals a conviction and the court decides later there was jury misconduct it will be reversed and remanded and will not be used as future legal precedent. If at trial the jury refuses to follow the law the judge does have discretion.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The jury decision of Not Guilty will always stand.

The prosecution can't appeal the decision because they have no standing to do so. The judge can't declare a mistrial because the second that the jury reaches a unanimous decision the trial is over and everything else is just pomp and circumstance. Any mistrial motions or accusations of jury misconduct must be brought up before the end of the trial UNLESS the jury comes back with a decision of guilty. A decision of guilty can be overturned by the judge right there, or by an appeals court or by the supreme court or even by the president of the US.

A decision of not guilty on the other hand can't be overturned. The judge can't declare a mistrial after a decision of not guilty, the appeals court can't even hear a case about jury nullification, and the president can't wave a wand and make a man guilty. That is the way our system works with many people having the ability to release a person from prison but only one group having the ability to declare a man guilty.

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

Chazwozel said:
LAW NERD FIGHT!

Forgiveness please for continuing the argument.

I just find jury nullification interesting as hell and the chance to discuss it isn't one I can give up.

Apr 3, 2010#72

Chibibar

The system is not perfect. The whole idea is that the person is presume innocent until proven guilty. It is a double edge sword sadly

you could sent an innocent person to jail with the right evidence in place and release a criminal BUT you follow procedures and evidence, but if the jury goes by what they "think" the person is guilty or innocent, the case could have been thrown out since the jury is not being impartial.

Apr 3, 2010#73

Kitty Sinatra

Dubyamn said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Apr 3, 2010#74

makare

Dubyamn;365310][QUOTE=makare1 said:
I did not say that jury nullification does not happen I said it is a bad practice and is not encouraged. The jury is not the place to decide if an issue is constitutional which is what we were discussing. If the jury refuses to try the case on the law and there is obvious jury misconduct it wasn't a fair trial.

That isn't the same as saying a jury found him not guilty so state go find more evidence which is where the double jeopardy would apply. I am talking about instances of obvious misbehavior by the jury or bias by the jury. i am not saying that we can just assume misconduct and throw it out. If the state appeals a conviction and the court decides later there was jury misconduct it will be reversed and remanded and will not be used as future legal precedent. If at trial the jury refuses to follow the law the judge does have discretion.

Chazwozel said:
LAW NERD FIGHT!

Forgiveness please for continuing the argument.

I just find jury nullification interesting as hell and the chance to discuss it isn't one I can give up.[/QUOTE]

I did not say it was misconduct to come back with a not guilty verdict. My point is the judge will never say here jury decide if this case is constitutional or not because that is not the jury's job. Crimson soul said that if they think it is unconstitutional they need to say not guilty. I guess that is their prerogative as an individual but it is certainly not what they are supposed to do. Because the average person who would be a juror doesn't know what constitutional is. Saying someone can decide right vs wrong or fair vs unfair is not the same as saying they decide constitutional vs unconstitutional.

We read cases where the state is appealing the not guilty verdict on matters of law all the time. I shouldnt have said it leads to retrial because i think that is where i confused everyone but it definitely leads to over turning the case as precedent, and retrial of the issue in new cases, which is really what my concern is.

Apr 3, 2010#75

CrimsonSoul

Gruebeard;365322][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Apr 3, 2010#76

D

Dubyamn

Gruebeard;365322][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.

What's your experience and knowledge of the law? And to clarify: I'm not asking where you're getting your information from. I'm asking what's in your background to allow you to decently interpret your information.[/QUOTE]

Jury Nullification like I said is something that I've always been interested in. Wrote a term paper on it in college and have read many law review articles on it.

No formal training but I like to think I'm a well informed amateur. Shouldn't have said she had no idea what she is talking about though that's just a douche move.

Apr 3, 2010#77

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
I did not say it was misconduct to come back with a not guilty verdict. My point is the judge will never say here jury decide if this case is constitutional or not because that is not the jury's job.

Oh you are right and that no judge will ever tell a jury to decide based upon their own beliefs in right and wrong instead of following the law. In fact if the judge or defense attorney even say jury nullification it is grounds for an immediate mistrial. But that doesn't mean that a jury is wrong if they do a jury nullification.

Crimson soul said that if they think it is unconstitutional they need to say not guilty. I guess that is their prerogative as an individual but it is certainly not what they are supposed to do. Because the average person who would be a juror doesn't know what constitutional is. Saying someone can decide right vs wrong or fair vs unfair is not the same as saying they decide constitutional vs unconstitutional.

We read cases where the state is appealing the not guilty verdict on matters of law all the time. I shouldnt have said it leads to retrial because i think that is where i confused everyone but it definitely leads to over turning the case as precedent, and retrial of the issue in new cases, which is really what my concern is.

I've never heard of this being the case with jury nullification. On what grounds were these cases challenged?

Apr 3, 2010#78

makare

Dubyamn;365393][QUOTE=makare1 said:
I did not say it was misconduct to come back with a not guilty verdict. My point is the judge will never say here jury decide if this case is constitutional or not because that is not the jury's job.

Crimson soul said that if they think it is unconstitutional they need to say not guilty. I guess that is their prerogative as an individual but it is certainly not what they are supposed to do. Because the average person who would be a juror doesn't know what constitutional is. Saying someone can decide right vs wrong or fair vs unfair is not the same as saying they decide constitutional vs unconstitutional.

We read cases where the state is appealing the not guilty verdict on matters of law all the time. I shouldnt have said it leads to retrial because i think that is where i confused everyone but it definitely leads to over turning the case as precedent, and retrial of the issue in new cases, which is really what my concern is.

I've never heard of this being the case with jury nullification. On what grounds were these cases challenged?[/QUOTE]

Anytime the state needs an issue of law decided they appeal. It doesn't overturn the lower court but it does clarify the law and creates future precedent.

The problem I have with jury nullification assuming the state couldn't appeal is, what if it really is a bullshit law? Sure the jury gets to slap themselves on the back knowing they did the right thing for this one guy but the next person is just going to be subject to the same law and perhaps a less sympathetic jury. If the law is bad then the appeals court can say so when it is appealed by the state. Juries do not get to decide the law at all they decide one case's issues. It is the appeals court that really says this or that is good law. And that is the way I for one want it. I do not want a group of laymen subjectively deciding what is or is not good law it would throw the entire country's jurisprudence into chaos.

Apr 4, 2010#79

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
Anytime the state needs an issue of law decided they appeal. It doesn't overturn the lower court but it does clarify the law and creates future precedent.

Any specific cases that you can quote where the appeal was actually heard?

The problem I have with jury nullification assuming the state couldn't appeal is, what if it really is a bullshit law? Sure the jury gets to slap themselves on the back knowing they did the right thing for this one guy but the next person is just going to be subject to the same law and perhaps a less sympathetic jury. If the law is bad then the appeals court can say so when it is appealed by the state. Juries do not get to decide the law at all they decide one case's issues. It is the appeals court that really says this or that is good law. And that is the way I for one want it. I do not want a group of laymen subjectively deciding what is or is not good law it would throw the entire country's jurisprudence into chaos.

You're making a couple points here and they are weaved through the paragraph so I'm just going to break them into parts.

1:That jury nullification causes chaos in the judicial system. It doesn't as your example shows the jury decision effects nothing at all besides the defendant going free. It doesn't make precedent, doesn't make the news it just allows a man who shouldn't be in prison avoid being in prison in the name of justice.

2: That jury nullification does nobody any good. So a Jury doesn't have the power to overturn a law for everybody justice is still done for Bob the accused. And the Jury has done their job better than the prosecutor who tried the BS case.

3:That jury nullification is only legit in cases of flagrantly bad laws. Let's face it prosecutors are only human they get angry and they are completely capable of pursuing a case that is completely legit under the law RAW and yet remain complete BS that shouldn't ever see the inside of a courtroom. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia completely legit case under the law and yet the pursuit of the case is nothing more than BS.

4: That Appeal courts should be more trusted than juries. No no they shouldn't be trusted at all. Appeals courts hand down terrible rulings everyday. Then there is the fact that a judge can't hand down a ruling based on right and wrong. They need to base their rulings based only on the law they can't let their morals enter into it. They have to hand down a ruling that they believe can withstand an appeal with a legitimate judgement. The jury doesn't have that problem they are able to hand down a ruling. A perfect example of this is the case I showed above. The appeals court didn't overrule the decision and that kid is going to be labeled a sex offender the rest of his life because of it. Hell if the appeals court had it's way the kid would still be in prison. They only agreed to hear the case due to the political pressure brought on by the media.

Apr 4, 2010#80

WolfOfOdin

makare1;363947][QUOTE=Tinwhistler;363946][QUOTE=makare1;363937][QUOTE=Tinwhistler;363934][QUOTE=makare1 said:
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?

[/QUOTE]

Stare decisis bitch. It's how we roll yo! :rockon:[/QUOTE]

Ahhh Stare Decisis...you're a bastard and a savior all at once.

Generall Tin, Makre is right here. Nullification in today's court rooms is more or less the jury impolitely saying "fuck you!" and deciding to ignore the evidence for and against. More often than not, this often ends in a mistrial. The problem with Jay's decision is that juries at his time were composed of a more....homogenous society. I know it sounds horrible, but I would NOT want to leave matters of deciding the constitutiality of a law up to the lay citizens of the country. Giving power to the mob in that way can make things...hairy.

Also it'd put me out of a future job.

Apr 4, 2010#81

makare

Dubyamn;365598][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Anytime the state needs an issue of law decided they appeal. It doesn't overturn the lower court but it does clarify the law and creates future precedent.

Any specific cases that you can quote where the appeal was actually heard?

The problem I have with jury nullification assuming the state couldn't appeal is, what if it really is a bullshit law? Sure the jury gets to slap themselves on the back knowing they did the right thing for this one guy but the next person is just going to be subject to the same law and perhaps a less sympathetic jury. If the law is bad then the appeals court can say so when it is appealed by the state. Juries do not get to decide the law at all they decide one case's issues. It is the appeals court that really says this or that is good law. And that is the way I for one want it. I do not want a group of laymen subjectively deciding what is or is not good law it would throw the entire country's jurisprudence into chaos.

Apr 4, 2010#82

D

Dubyamn

makare1;365608][QUOTE=Dubyamn;365598][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Anytime the state needs an issue of law decided they appeal. It doesn't overturn the lower court but it does clarify the law and creates future precedent.

Any specific cases that you can quote where the appeal was actually heard?

The problem I have with jury nullification assuming the state couldn't appeal is, what if it really is a bullshit law? Sure the jury gets to slap themselves on the back knowing they did the right thing for this one guy but the next person is just going to be subject to the same law and perhaps a less sympathetic jury. If the law is bad then the appeals court can say so when it is appealed by the state. Juries do not get to decide the law at all they decide one case's issues. It is the appeals court that really says this or that is good law. And that is the way I for one want it. I do not want a group of laymen subjectively deciding what is or is not good law it would throw the entire country's jurisprudence into chaos.

The legislature makes the law and the judiciary interprets it, not juries. In my opinion jury nullification is a bad thing with no value. Not just in the case of a bs law, always. It is called the Legal SYSTEM. Individual cases mean nothing. All that matters is how they fit together in the grand scheme of the system as a whole. If a jury takes it upon themselves to not do their damn jobs then the system won't work. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this issue mostly because to see appeals courts as a negative thing is so beyond anything I can understand I don't have much else to say on the issue.

We'll just have to agree to disagree since I see an unjust ruling going to the appeals court as the system failing. Straight up failure on the part of the prosecutor, the judge or the defense attorney. Every appeals court ruling overturning a lower court is nothing less than a slap in the face of every tax paying citizen where as you see it as some kind of glorious success of the system.

Jury Nullification on the other hand is common sense winning over idiocy and hypocrisy. But like you said we'll never see eye to eye on this.

Apr 4, 2010#83

makare

I see the success of the system everyday in school. The appeals system is the only way to bring any semblance of fairness to the courts.

Giving the corp rights also gave them responsibilities so that is a plus. The limits on ads is not the job of the judiciary it is the job of the legislature to make those decisions. The Supremes did the right thing.

The appeals courts are people yes but why are they automatically bad people while a bunch of laymen jurors are your heroes? That makes no sense to me. The appeals court is where law and precedence is made. Without it it is just a bunch of judges making their own law. That is not the kind of world I want to live in.

Apr 4, 2010#84

Kitty Sinatra

CrimsonSoul;365372][QUOTE=Gruebeard;365322][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.

What's your experience and knowledge of the law? And to clarify: I'm not asking where you're getting your information from. I'm asking what's in your background to allow you to decently interpret your information.[/QUOTE]

I'm about a year away from my BA in Criminal Justice, does that count?[/QUOTE]

No. Unless you're Dubyamn's alt

After all, I was really just kindly ragging on him for what he acknowledged was a poor comment.

Apr 5, 2010#85

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
I see the success of the system everyday in school. The appeals system is the only way to bring any semblance of fairness to the courts.

Yes I agree with you there. However the fact that the appeals and supreme court are needed are still slaps in the face of those of us who pay their salaries.

A necessary slap in the face like an auto spell checker on a word processor but a slap none the less.

Giving the corp rights also gave them responsibilities so that is a plus. The limits on ads is not the job of the judiciary it is the job of the legislature to make those decisions. The Supremes did the right thing.

No it isn't a plus. Citizens have 1 responsibility and that is to pay our taxes and not commit crimes stuff that the corporations should have already been doing.

And the legislature has already ruled on the limits of political ads paid for by corporations. Many many times but the judiciary overruled it on a completely unrelated case.

The appeals courts are people yes but why are they automatically bad people while a bunch of laymen jurors are your heroes? That makes no sense to me. The appeals court is where law and precedence is made. Without it it is just a bunch of judges making their own law. That is not the kind of world I want to live in.

My goodness why would a bunch of layman jurors intelligent and strong willed enough to stand up to the system and tell the judge and prosecutor they are wrong in allowing this case near a courtroom and their decision can't be overruled and can't even be questioned by any of the people who failed in their duty be my heros? Sure that's a romanticized version of what happens in a jury nullification but it's still a group of common men enacting justice on some small scale. On the other hand the appeals courts are their to hold the line when some lower court judge fails to apply

What you feel about judges without precedence is what I feel about a world where juries can't deviate from the law even in cases of absurd application of the law. A world where a jury is forced to pull the trigger and ruin some poor bastards life and then hope that years down the line an appeals court will hear his case and pass judgement in his favor. In my opinion it is best to get the innocent people out of the court system as early as possible.

Apr 5, 2010#86

makare

If they can free an innocent man for bullshit reasons they can convict them for bullshit reasons. I don't advocate any kind of vigilantism. Jurors are supposed to find fact, not take the law into their own hands for their own subjective purposes.

Citizens have many responsibilities in contract and tort law which is where a corporation would have their responsibilities. I don't know what you are talking about.

Apr 5, 2010#87

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
If they can free an innocent man for bullshit reasons they can convict them for bullshit reasons. I don't advocate any kind of vigilantism. Jurors are supposed to find fact, not take the law into their own hands for their own subjective purposes.

Jurors will always convict and release based on bullshit reasoning. That's why defense attorneys give their clients a haircut and a new suit. That's why clients are told to offer little hard candies to their attorney and the prosecutor. That's why many times when a jury is asked why they convict a person they answer "He didn't look regretful enough."

Finding somebody not guilty because the law is wrong is significantly less bullshitty than most decisions reached by a jury. Jury Nullification at least shows some kind of thought process.

Citizens have many responsibilities in contract and tort law which is where a corporation would have their responsibilities. I don't know what you are talking about.

And what responsibilities didn't apply to corporations before they were recognized as citizens?

Apr 5, 2010#88

Tinwhistler

Dubyamn said:
Jurors will always convict and release based on bullshit reasoning.

Lol, no shit there.

Judges aren't immune to bullshit reasoning, either.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119584642/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"For 67 defendants (excluding those who had drawn "flat sentences" of 99–199 years), attractiveness was predictive of both minimum and maximum sentences (p <.001)-the more attractive the defendant, the less severe the sentence imposed"
and
"Race of the defendant showed a systematic relationship to punishment, with nonwhites drawing consistently more severe sentences than whites"

Yeah, them judges...so unbiased and perfect when upholding matters of law. We should take all responsibility for thinking out of the jury's hands and put it in theirs. It's a bonus if you're good looking, of course.

Apr 5, 2010#89

makare

Tinwhistler said:
Yeah, them judges...so unbiased and perfect when upholding matters of law. We should take all responsibility for thinking out of the jury's hands and put it in theirs. It's a bonus if you're good looking, of course.

Apr 5, 2010#90

Chazwozel

Tinwhistler;365741][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
Jurors will always convict and release based on bullshit reasoning.

Apr 5, 2010#91

Tinwhistler

makare1;365791][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
Yeah, them judges...so unbiased and perfect when upholding matters of law. We should take all responsibility for thinking out of the jury's hands and put it in theirs. It's a bonus if you're good looking, of course.

Wow that's unnecessarily dickish.
I never said anything remotely like that. The jurors have a job and the judges have a job. In order for the system to work, they both need to do them. The jury finds fact and the judge makes sure they are applying the law. The human element means that stupid shit happens sometimes, doesn't mean you throw out part of the system.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that anyone's advocating throwing out part of the system, my thin-skinned friend.

I think some people are just advocating that juries should vote with their consciences, not be some kind of robot that will put people in jail even if they don't feel that they belong there. You try to paint this as some kind of aberration or failure of the legal system. Some of us, however, see it as one of the many checks and balances against tyranny that exist in this country. No matter how frowned upon it is in modern times, this ability for the jury to stand up and say no to unjust charges has a pretty long and glorious history.

Apr 5, 2010#92

Chazwozel

Tinwhistler;365810][QUOTE=makare1;365791][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
Yeah, them judges...so unbiased and perfect when upholding matters of law. We should take all responsibility for thinking out of the jury's hands and put it in theirs. It's a bonus if you're good looking, of course.

Apr 5, 2010#93

Tinwhistler

Just as a point to show that this theory is an enshrined tradition, here's a bit of the Maryland state constitution:
"Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. "

Oh, it's in the Indiana one, too:
(article 1, section 19) "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."

Georgia, perhaps?
(article 1, section 1) "In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts."

It's in their freaking constitutions. It's not "bad law". It upholds the theory that the jury stands between the government and the common man, and if a jury of ones peers decides that the government should get fucked on a bullshit case, then their opinion reigns supreme.

Apr 5, 2010#94

makare

Well if your idea of a good thing is perpetuating the bad by never actually handling it then fine. Encouraging the jury to not do their jobs just keeps the bad law in play. Personally I want to keep people from being charged in the first place under bad law but I am more of a proactive person anyway.

A jury does not decide the law to apply in any state. They are finders of fact and they are to apply the law as instructed by the judge.

Also, as I've said a few times, you put the law in the juries hands just as many innocent will be condemned as guilty go free. if you can live with that, fine, I sure as hell can't.

Apr 5, 2010#95

Eriol

makare, I think the essence of this is that while a Jury can set any one (or one group, if tried together) defendant free, they can't actually strike down a law. So it lets a jury's view of justice come through, but preserves the mechanisms involved in making and overthrowing laws to people who (should be) educated on the actual laws, constitution, and mechanics therein. There's plenty of stupid decisions by many parties on all sides, but juries can only keep people OUT of jail through the "they get out because we say so" thing, they can't keep people in through ignoring law, as even a judge can set aside a guilty verdict on-the-spot. It's consistent with the USA's legal tradition.

At least that's what I've gotten out of this (very fascinating) thread from reading it through.

Apr 5, 2010#96

makare

Eriol said:
makare, I think the essence of this is that while a Jury can set any one (or one group, if tried together) defendant free, they can't actually strike down a law. So it lets a jury's view of justice come through, but preserves the mechanisms involved in making and overthrowing laws to people who (should be) educated on the actual laws, constitution, and mechanics therein. There's plenty of stupid decisions by many parties on all sides, but juries can only keep people OUT of jail through the "they get out because we say so" thing, they can't keep people in through ignoring law, as even a judge can set aside a guilty verdict on-the-spot. It's consistent with the USA's legal tradition.

At least that's what I've gotten out of this (very fascinating) thread from reading it through.

If cases aren't appealed there is never an opportunity to overturn bad law. So the jury may be helping one person but they are stalling the legal system and preventing any chance of bad law from being changed. I want bad law to be fixed. But that is just the future lawyer in me I suppose.

Apr 5, 2010#97

Eriol

makare1 said:
If cases aren't appealed there is never an opportunity to overturn bad law. So the jury may be helping one person but they are stalling the legal system and preventing any chance of bad law from being changed. I want bad law to be fixed. But that is just the future lawyer in me I suppose.

This is where I'll disagree with you to a great degree. If a bad law NEEDS fixing, then it should be a legislative assembly which does it, NOT judges. Strike down entirely? Great! But it's the "screwing with things by judges" that can have some of the weirdest side-effects ever. It should be the elected ones that change things. Judges should only strike them down entirely IMO.

If you want a good example of "judges gone wild" with their decisions and how they change things, read the wiki article about contract law in Canada (and read the few related ones, specifically Contract A, and the case which determined it), and how royally our Supreme Court screwed it up with a decision of theirs. Long story short: contract law works differently in Canada than practically everywhere else in the WORLD that was EVER a British Commonwealth. Complete departure from British Common Law (of which the majority of legal systems in the world, including the USA's, was based off of), even though that's what the wiki "claims" we're still based on (really, we're not).

Apr 5, 2010#98

makare

Well here the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets it. If they interpret it to be unconstitutional then they deem it so and the legislature has to deal with it. I have said that the legislature makes laws many times in this thread. But the judiciary gets to point out how the law they make is stupid. So there we are.

Thanks to our judges tinkering we get to have lawyers for non capital crimes and we get our Miranda rights. It isn't all bad things.

Apr 5, 2010#99

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
Well if your idea of a good thing is perpetuating the bad by never actually handling it then fine. Encouraging the jury to not do their jobs just keeps the bad law in play. Personally I want to keep people from being charged in the first place under bad law but I am more of a proactive person anyway.

And we want innocent people to be kept out of prison. Lives not ruined because of bad laws.

A jury does not decide the law to apply in any state. They are finders of fact and they are to apply the law as instructed by the judge.

Once again this definition fills me with fear about the system.

Also, as I've said a few times, you put the law in the juries hands just as many innocent will be condemned as guilty go free. if you can live with that, fine, I sure as hell can't.

Nonsense absolute nonsense. You put the law in the hands of the juries you'll have the exact same system we have now. The same system you defend so stridently and forcefully. Absolutely no different.

Apr 5, 2010#100

makare

Dubyamn;365905][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Well if your idea of a good thing is perpetuating the bad by never actually handling it then fine. Encouraging the jury to not do their jobs just keeps the bad law in play. Personally I want to keep people from being charged in the first place under bad law but I am more of a proactive person anyway.

And we want innocent people to be kept out of prison. Lives not ruined because of bad laws.

A jury does not decide the law to apply in any state. They are finders of fact and they are to apply the law as instructed by the judge.

Once again this definition fills me with fear about the system.

Also, as I've said a few times, you put the law in the juries hands just as many innocent will be condemned as guilty go free. if you can live with that, fine, I sure as hell can't.

Nonsense absolute nonsense. You put the law in the hands of the juries you'll have the exact same system we have now. The same system you defend so stridently and forcefully. Absolutely no different.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. It takes years of training and experience to understand the law and how to apply it. A bunch of laymen are not going to be able to apply it the way it should be applied.

Going back to the point of this thread, you would have had General Specific and his fellow jurors lock the guy up because they believed he was guilty. So forget the law they are supposed to apply, and the standard they are supposed to maintain, you think they should just follow their conscience.

That is NOT our system of justice that is a complete bastardization of it.

Apr 5, 2010#101

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
Bullshit. It takes years of training and experience to understand the law and how to apply it. A bunch of laymen are not going to be able to apply it the way it should be applied.

Going back to the point of this thread, you would have had General Specific and his fellow jurors lock the guy up because they believed he was guilty. So forget the law they are supposed to apply, and the standard they are supposed to maintain, you think they should just follow their conscience.

Actually no I said that they should follow their conscience which they did in saying that yeah he probably committed the crime in question but there was enough reasonable doubt to let him go.

But go ahead accuse me of saying things that I never said. Don't feel the need to even try to see where I am coming from in my arguements!! LIE, INSULT, take out of context just don't surrender to those who believe that the judges and lawyers aren't a ruling class and shouldn't ever be. Continue to argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and that an injustice should be tolerated for the outside chance that an appeals court will hear the case and rule on the side of justice.

That is NOT our system of justice that is a complete bastardization of it.

Apr 5, 2010#102

makare

Dubyamn;365990][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Bullshit. It takes years of training and experience to understand the law and how to apply it. A bunch of laymen are not going to be able to apply it the way it should be applied.

Going back to the point of this thread, you would have had General Specific and his fellow jurors lock the guy up because they believed he was guilty. So forget the law they are supposed to apply, and the standard they are supposed to maintain, you think they should just follow their conscience.

That is NOT our system of justice that is a complete bastardization of it.

No juries following their conscience is our system. Same way that judges are never able to be unbiased or prosecutors completely fair in their decisions. The system is flawed deeply and utterly flawed. Jury Nullification is not one of those flaws.[/QUOTE]

No following their conscience would be to send him to jail because he was guilty. Following the law and procedure is letting him go because the prosecution failed to make their case. That is not following their conscience that is following the procedure and doing their jobs.

Maybe if your argument was not only contrary to the legal system but also to reality I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Talk about saying stuff I never said. I never said judges and lawyers are a ruling class but they are the EDUCATED class. If we were talking medicine here you would tell people to operate on themselves because they know their own bodies better instead of relying on those merely educated in the workings of all human bodies.

Mostly what I am saying now, is to use your own phrase, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And I sincerely mean that.

Apr 5, 2010#103

General Specific

When we were going into the Jury Room to deliberate, the Judge explicitly told us to set aside our preconceived notions of the law or what the law should be and go by the laws that are on the book. He then read to us the applicable laws which we were to consider. However, we were not allowed to have a copy of those laws in the room for us to review. So, it was the application of that law as we saw fit or as we understood it to be. I believe this is as much to inform us as to what the law is as it was to remove anyone wanting to apply other laws (Christian, Jewish, Islamic codes, etc.).

That being said, this was also a trial over an armed robbery, so there was no quibbling over the constitutionality of the laws.

Apr 5, 2010#104

D

Dubyamn

makare1 said:
No following their conscience would be to send him to jail because he was guilty. Following the law and procedure is letting him go because the prosecution failed to make their case. That is not following their conscience that is following the procedure and doing their jobs.

Says you. I say that following their conscience is not sending a man to jail if the case hasn't been presented past a reasonable doubt.

Maybe if your argument was not only contrary to the legal system but also to reality I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Yes my argument that judges make mistakes and that prosecutors act contrary to justice flies in the face of reality. Absolutely no basis in reality that prosecutors and judges are human.

Talk about saying stuff I never said. I never said judges and lawyers are a ruling class but they are the EDUCATED class. If we were talking medicine here you would tell people to operate on themselves because they know their own bodies better instead of relying on those merely educated in the workings of all human bodies.

And thus the only ones that can make decisions while those who didn't go to law school are unable to influence their decision. Doess your definition of ruling class require them to be giant lizards or something?

And the day that medicine removes the ability for people to act Against Medical Advice you can make comparisons between the two. As it is however if you don't trust a doctor to preform a surgery you can talk to countless other doctors while if you don't like a judge all you can do is ask him to excuse himself.

Apr 5, 2010#105

Kitty Sinatra

Dubyamn said:
Says you. I say that following their conscience is not sending a man to jail if the case hasn't been presented past a reasonable doubt.

Apr 5, 2010#106

D

Dubyamn

Gruebeard;366056][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
Says you. I say that following their conscience is not sending a man to jail if the case hasn't been presented past a reasonable doubt.

Are you talking about General Specific's experience, here? As he presented his feelings in the OP, his conscience was telling him he should've convicted, even though his duty told him not to. This, if I read both him and you correctly, is the exact opposite of what you wrote in what I just quoted there[/QUOTE]

Actually yeah. His conscience is bothering him after the fact because of outside facts showing that he probably did it.

When he talks about the trial he doesn't seem to question the morality of if they should acquit. In fact he seems pretty clear that while they agreed he probably did it they weren't sure. Course that's the way I read it I'd hate to put words in his mouth.

Apr 5, 2010#107

General Specific

Dubyamn said:
Actually yeah. His conscience is bothering him after the fact because of outside facts showing that he probably did it.

When he talks about the trial he doesn't seem to question the morality of if they should acquit. In fact he seems pretty clear that while they agreed he probably did it they weren't sure. Course that's the way I read it I'd hate to put words in his mouth.

That is accurate.

Apr 5, 2010#108

Kitty Sinatra

And so would you still come back with a Not Guilty verdict, Gen? (assuming here that'd you be the whole jury this time)

Apr 5, 2010#109

General Specific

Given the evidence of the state, yes. It'd still be Not Guilty. Now if they had one more piece of evidence (the bullet, the money, the bag, etc.), it probably would have been enough to tip the scales. But as it stands, it'd still be the same verdict.

Apr 5, 2010#110

Kitty Sinatra

Now that you've said that, are you now content that you are responsible for making your neighborhood less safe?

Apr 5, 2010#111

General Specific

No. I can't convict him simply because I would feel better doing so, but that doesn't mean I feel good about letting this guy out.

I would feel equally bad if I had convicted him on the purely circumstantial evidence. I would have felt as if I had shirked my duty.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Apr 5, 2010#112

Kitty Sinatra

Hah! I was expecting you to say yes, but then I just read my post and saw that I forgot to throw a "not" in there, making "no" the expected answer.

Apr 5, 2010#113

Chazwozel

I think I'm beginning to understand the law student's plight. Everyone seems to think they're a lawyer. Just to turn things over to the other shoe, Dub, you're not going to win this argument. She's a lawyer in training. They're like pit-bulls. They latch on and won't let go.

Speaking of laymen trying to 'school' the professionals, we haven't had a good biochem/genetics/evolution topic as of late where I could really rip into someone. This makes me sad.

Forums