Hacker News Reader

Comment by regularfry | Hacker News Reader

"...I cannot begrudge the jury their verdict. Their job is not to rewrite laws, or ignore stupid ones..."

Surely the existence of jury nullification argues that this is precisely their job?

This is an incredibly important point, and bears adding more information. See the Fully Informed Jury Association here: http://fija.org/

I tell myself that were I in this case, I'd insist that my lawyer make this point, and move for a mistrial were my lawyer not willing to defend me in this way. In real life, I don't know if I'd have the guts to do that.

It's incredible that judges as a matter of course lie to juries, telling them that they must decide based on the law, and ignore their conscience. On the contrary, the reason that juries exist is precisely because of their conscience; otherwise we'd just have a computer keep score in the trial. It's a horrible failing of our legal (I hesitate to say "justice") system that this is not only tolerated but perpetuated.

Here's a question: in the US, if a juror mentions jury nullification during deliberation, can they be penalized or can their actions lead to a mistrial?

I seem to remember that once deliberation starts, whatever a jury talks about is officially under wraps, but I've seen way too much Law & Order to trust anything I remember about our legal system.

Wikipedia says yes:

"In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law"

"In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite...

As with any threat to the Establishment, you have to be discreet. Of course the Establishment is going to get upset when you take an end-run around their procedures. So don't tell anyone you are doing it; convince the other jurors with facts from the trial, and if they can't be convinced, you can always hang.

(Remember, it cuts both ways. Nullification can prevent unfair laws from being applied. But nullification can also let the white supremecist go free for lynching a black man, if another racist is on the jury. This would be a horrifying miscarriage of justice and would put society in danger, so it makes sense that there are safeguards that help prevent this situation.)

One of the key parts of US criminal trials is agreeing on the "instructions to the jury." Basically, this is a compilation of pieces of advice on relevant law and procedure that the judge reads to the jury before they start deliberating. I seriously doubt that any judge would consent to include information on jury nullification in their instructions, and having an attorney speak directly to the jury about this possibility during the trial would likely result in a mistrial.

I understand your point, CW, but I just don't think that it would fly.

Incidentally, this verdict is a good example of why I despise overly broad laws that criminalize actions that a completely reasonable person would take.

Jury nullification is not a recognized part of the US legal system. Its something that can happen, but its viewed as more of a loophole than anything else.

Incidentally, I was recently dismissed from jury duty by the judge for asking an honest question regarding jury nullification.

EDIT: I should add that I think this is unfortunate.

What was your question? My wife is desperately trying to get out of Jury duty (busy life, bad timing), but not having much luck.

She can almost assuredly get knocked out during voir dire simply by being educated, intelligent and analytical.

I've been called to voir dire three times, and three times I've been excused after being asked about my educational and professional experience.

Your wife should join the ACLU and the NRA.

Since knowledge of jury nullification is far from widespread, and any mention of it during a trial would likely lead to an immediate mistrial, I think he is correct not to begrudge the jury their verdict.

I understand why the jury reached their verdict, but that doesn't change the fact that their ignorance harmed someone.

Ironically, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." is something I agree with in this case.

Ignorance only benefits the powerful. The judicial system can and will keep jurors ignorant about this, while a defendants cannot claim "ignorance of the law" as a defense in their case.

It's strange. I remember jury nullification from my Constitution class, which is required to get a high school diploma in the US. Actually, it may have been required to graduate from middle school.

Do people really forget stuff like this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com