Spread the word OUR RIGHT to JURY NULLIFICATION

[Locksmith]

. .

[Purplehood]

I look forward to Chas.commenting on this...

[The Annoyed Man]

I look forward to Chas.commenting on this...

Ditto.

Nice try, but I am skeptical. The Supreme Court is charged with determining the constitutionality of what happens in the lower courts, but it requires that a case work it's way up the judicial ladder before the SCOTUS can decide whether or not to hear it. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the real meaning of nullification is that a juror may nullify, which results only in a hung jury, which in turn results in a re-trial. If the defendant does not like the adjudication, then he/she is free to pursue the matter up the judicial chain of command - as long as the higher court grants commission to appeal the decision, up to and including the SCOTUS.

My own personal interpretation of the Constitution is that I believe in original intent, which is why I strongly support my RKBA. But that being said, current realities do interfere, whether we like it or not, and I suspect that the current state and practice of constitutional law no longer recognizes jury nullification as the final word in the constitutionality of laws, indeed if it ever did. The Constitution itself reserves that responsibility to the Supreme Court alone. So, if you are on a jury, and you nullify the decision by causing a hung jury, prepare to have yourself overturned by the only court that actually has that power of constitutional determination - as granted by the Constitution itself.

In truth, if jury nullification were the final word on whether a law is constitutional or not, it would be a disaster. Let's say that you shoot someone in self defense, but the facts of the case are enough in doubt to cause a grand jury to indict you on a charge of homicide. Under the status quo, a reasonably competent attorney could get you acquitted of the charges and you would go free. Now, with nullification in play, you go to trial, and one of the jurors does not believe that the 2nd is an individual right, and thus the Texas CHL law is null and void. According to his/her conscience, that juror votes guilty on the grounds that the Texas CHL law is unconstitutional, not on whether or not you were actually in danger and had a legitimate right to defend yourself with deadly force. You want a wing-nut like that deciding for you what rights you have under the Constitution?

I'm just saying. . .

[Locksmith]

. .

[Captain Matt]

If judge rulings have that power then so do unanimous jury decisions.

one of the jurors does not believe that the 2nd is an individual right, and thus the Texas CHL law is null and void. According to his/her conscience, that juror votes guilty on the grounds that the Texas CHL law is unconstitutional, not on whether or not you were actually in danger and had a legitimate right to defend yourself with deadly force.

That's called a hung jury.

[Purplehood]

With this logic there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

A single juror nullifying a law? As mentioned above, that is called a hung-jury. I see it as simply a means of an individual juror justifying their reason to the court, for not complying with the Judge's instructions.

[magicglock]

I am a skeptic and this looks a whole lot like a hung jury.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I hate to disappoint those who want to hear my opinion on this, but I don't know enough about the topic to comment. I would need to research the issue, including reading the entire cases cited in the article.

We did discuss jury nullification very briefly in law school. While elevating what amounts to a procedure to a "right" seems a bit much, I'm hardly in a position to make any authoritative statement. As a practical matter, right or no right, when a jury makes a decision it's final unless jury misconduct can be proven and that's virtually impossible under most state court rules. Otherwise, many cases would have two trials; the real one, then the trial on alleged jury misconduct.

I can't recall a recent "jury nullification" case other than the O.J. Simpson murder trial, although there may well be others. Behind closed doors in secret deliberations, any jury can simply say the defendant should be acquitted and render that verdict without every uttering the phrase "jury nullification." As others have mentioned however, it would require that all 12 jurors have the same feeling, as well as the willingness to disregard the judge's written instructions (call a jury charge) for jury nullification to actually work. This would be highly unlikely, since even mentioning this concept to a jury in trial would likely get an attorney sanctioned and very possibly a mistrial.

Chas.

[WarHawk-AVG]

So where is our forum "lawyer" ??

[jimlongley]

The treatise at the beginning of the thread also looks like a hung jury to me. It has been my understanding that "jury nullification" was when a jury found a defendant not guilty despite that defendant's clearly having violated the law that they were charged with violating, thereby nullifying the law. At least in that one case.

A particular jury's nullification of a law would have an effect on only the case that jury decided, not on any others, as in an appellate or supreme court ruling.

have the (dubious) honor of being acquainted with one of the top appellate attorneys in NY. The same age as my daughters, it was obvious from young childhood that "Beth" was destined to be an appellate attorney, and she has gone on to carve quite a niche for herself.

Back in the 70s, while "Beth" was still attending Albany Law, she was at our home for dinner and the subject of my involvement in he campaign to rid NY of the onerous Sullivan Law came up. One of the tactics my organization had placed some faith in was the possibility of a jury nullifying the law, which "Beth" in a long, convoluted, and quite painful explanation (which sounded more like a summation) explained would hold for only the individual case, would need the agreement of all of the jurors, would need to happen without the attorneys and judge knowing, and would be highly unlikely anyway. Considering her shrill and long winded explanations, it's no wonder she wins cases, the judges, opposing counsel, and juries probably give up just to get her to shut up.

I have tales of "Beth" when she was young, that are not necessarily suitable for publication here, also a couple of other prominent NY judges and politicians.

I think jury nullification is something that only happens in the movies and on tv.

[stroo]

Jury nullifications happen but they are rare. They also only apply to the case at hand. The first case I was involved in preparing for trial as a law clerk when I was in law school ended in jury nullification. In the rest of my almost 30 year career, I have never seen it again in any case I was involved in.

[Locksmith]

. .

[Locksmith]

. .

[Locksmith]

. .

[jimlongley]

Other doubters can also check into this further here:

For more information on jury nullification, contact the Fully Informed Jury
Association at http://www.fija.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know if you are casting me as one of those doubters, but you proved nothing by reposting what we had already read, and the reference above ultimately leads to a Harvard Law Review article which pretty much supports what I said.