• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I Think The Judge Thought I Was An Abomination

olds

olds

Elite Member
I had jury duty today.

One on the instructions was that jurors had to follow the letter of the law. The judge then asked if anyone had an issue with that. I was the only one.
I told him I believed in jury nullification and that if I sat as a juror on a trial for a father that harmed a person that harmed his kids, that I would refuse to convict that father.

He had this incredulous look on his face, then excused me.

I don't get it though, I am not going to convict someone just because the law says I should. There are too many stupid laws.
 
oldsmoboat said:
I had jury duty today.

One on the instructions was that jurors had to follow the letter of the law. The judge then asked if anyone had an issue with that. I was the only one.
I told him I believed in jury nullification and that if I sat as a juror on a trial for a father that harmed a person that harmed his kids, that I would refuse to convict that father.

He had this incredulous look on his face, then excused me.

I don't get it though, I am not going to convict someone just because the law says I should. There are too many stupid laws.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir for standing up to the system. The DA and the judges just want head nodders on the jury that will buy into anything that is said by the DA and convict the accused no matter what.
 
Judicial = enforcing the law. As a jury member you have the responsibility to enforce the law. You don't like it, take steps to change it.

Or you could just do what you did and not have to worry about jury duty. 🙂
 
oldsmoboat said:
I had jury duty today.

One on the instructions was that jurors had to follow the letter of the law. The judge then asked if anyone had an issue with that. I was the only one.
I told him I believed in jury nullification and that if I sat as a juror on a trial for a father that harmed a person that harmed his kids, that I would refuse to convict that father.

He had this incredulous look on his face, then excused me.

I don't get it though, I am not going to convict someone just because the law says I should. There are too many stupid laws.
Click to expand...

I told them the same thing to a judge regarding non violent drug offenses. Haven't ever been called back for jury duty
 
That was really stupid, you should have just lied, then argued the guy was innocent if you felt he was.
 
Brovane said:
Thank you sir for standing up to the system. The DA and the judges just want head nodders on the jury that will buy into anything that is said by the DA and convict the accused no matter what.
Click to expand...
So never sitting on a jury helps this change how?

I actually wouldn't mine sitting on a jury right now since I have the flexibility to do that. However, I've been called three times and wasn't even assigned to a courtroom. Heck, when I went a month ago not a single case went to trial so everyone went home by 10 AM.
 
Elias824 said:
That was really stupid, you should have just lied, then argued the guy was innocent if you felt he was.
Click to expand...
What makes you think I was talking about the case I was sat for? I doubt it would be appropriate to comment on the defendant sitting in front of me. He was some dipshit gang banger. I was illustrating my point.
 
rockyct said:
So never sitting on a jury helps this change how?

I actually wouldn't mine sitting on a jury right now since I have the flexibility to do that. However, I've been called three times and wasn't even assigned to a courtroom. Heck, when I went a month ago not a single case went to trial so everyone went home by 10 AM.
Click to expand...
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case.

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'd refuse to follow the letter of the law in the situation OP mentioned, but drug possession or other relatively harmless non-violent crimes, maybe.
 
Last time I had jury duty, the defense attorney asked if any of the potential jurors would be more or less likely to believe the testimony of a police officer over a felon. I was the only one who raised my hand and was dismissed. I guess in the eyes of the law you're supposed to value everyone's testimony equally, which is completely retarded.
 
irishScott said:
Judicial = enforcing the law. As a jury member you have the responsibility to enforce the law. You don't like it, take steps to change it.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification IS part of the system, it's a check on judicial powers and can help see "true" justice is done. I absolutely support (appropriate) jury nullification.
 
That's why cases like this rarely go before a jury. They know they can't get a conviction because the jury is bias by default. The jury system is a double edged sword. On one hand it makes the courts more transparent to the public. On the other, you have 12 people with no legal training making legal decisions.
 
oldsmoboat said:
I had jury duty today.

One on the instructions was that jurors had to follow the letter of the law. The judge then asked if anyone had an issue with that. I was the only one.
I told him I believed in jury nullification and that if I sat as a juror on a trial for a father that harmed a person that harmed his kids, that I would refuse to convict that father.

He had this incredulous look on his face, then excused me.

I don't get it though, I am not going to convict someone just because the law says I should. There are too many stupid laws.
Click to expand...

Very commendable. Laws are not created equal, like all things conceived by man, they can be just as stupid, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious as humans.
 
oldsmoboat said:
I had jury duty today.

One on the instructions was that jurors had to follow the letter of the law. The judge then asked if anyone had an issue with that. I was the only one.
I told him I believed in jury nullification and that if I sat as a juror on a trial for a father that harmed a person that harmed his kids, that I would refuse to convict that father.

He had this incredulous look on his face, then excused me.

I don't get it though, I am not going to convict someone just because the law says I should. There are too many stupid laws.
Click to expand...

An LA judge would have called your bluff.
 
Come now, tell the truth! You made up that wild story because you knew if you were sequestered on a jury for a week or so that some missing AT'ers might escape from your basement. D:

We know you have TFP down there, you must love it when he squeeeeals😡
 
TheVrolok said:
Jury nullification IS part of the system, it's a check on judicial powers and can help see "true" justice is done. I absolutely support (appropriate) jury nullification.
Click to expand...

"True"? "Appropriate"? What you are championing really amounts to subjective justice.

Would you really be comfortable being tried in a "justice" system where the laws didn't really matter -- where the opinions of the jurors that happened to be picked for your case would determine your fate?

Not me...
 
GuitarDaddy said:
Come now, tell the truth! You made up that wild story because you knew if you were sequestered on a jury for a week or so that some missing AT'ers might escape from your basement. D:

We know you have TFP down there, you must love it when he squeeeeals😡
Click to expand...

I hear that neckbeard was one of them... and look at the trouble that has caused!
 
PowerEngineer said:
"True"? "Appropriate"? What you are championing really amounts to subjective justice.

Would you really be comfortable being tried in a "justice" system where the laws didn't really matter -- where the opinions of the jurors that happened to be picked for your case would determine your fate?

Not me...
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You argue that if jury nullification is possible then laws carry no weight?

Well, jury nullification is, and has been for centuries, possible and our laws seem to still be enforced frequently.

Do you honestly believe that jury nullification is the only way in which jurors opinions would come through? Really? ALL verdicts handed down by ALL juries are influenced by emotion/opinion. That's exactly why jury selection takes place... so lawyers can vet jurors with the appropriate opinions/emotions to find in their favor.

There are many, many instances of trials that were carried out "according to the letter of the law" that handed down absolutely absurd verdicts due to biased/illegal/etc practices of law.. pick any number of black v white cases in the south during the days of the civil rights movement. Jury nullification is the type of check that could prevent those miscarriages of justice.. did it? Well, no, because blacks were rarely selected for juries, but it's simply an example.

Jury nullification is not something that should happen frequently, or even sometimes, it should be very rare, but the ability for it to occur is important.
 
TheVrolok said:
Incorrect. You argue that if jury nullification is possible then laws carry no weight?

Well, jury nullification is, and has been for centuries, possible and our laws seem to still be enforced frequently.

Do you honestly believe that jury nullification is the only way in which jurors opinions would come through? Really? ALL verdicts handed down by ALL juries are influenced by emotion/opinion. That's exactly why jury selection takes place... so lawyers can vet jurors with the appropriate opinions/emotions to find in their favor.

There are many, many instances of trials that were carried out "according to the letter of the law" that handed down absolutely absurd verdicts due to biased/illegal/etc practices of law.. pick any number of black v white cases in the south during the days of the civil rights movement. Jury nullification is the type of check that could prevent those miscarriages of justice.. did it? Well, no, because blacks were rarely selected for juries, but it's simply an example.

Jury nullification is not something that should happen frequently, or even sometimes, it should be very rare, but the ability for it to occur is important.
Click to expand...

Now it's my turn to say: incorrect.

Jury nullification has always been possible because of the way that our justice system works. When it happens, it means by definition that "laws carry no weight" in the jury's verdict. If, as you say, "our laws seem to still be enforced frequently" then it is because this kind of jury behavior is thankfully rare (something both of us agree is a good thing).

I certainly do NOT "honestly believe" that this is the only kind of questionable behavior that jurors can engage in, and I certainly never said anything even close to that.

In fact, I will suggest to you that the best way to "prevent those miscarriages of justice" is to always impanel a jury of individuals who are willing to put "the letter of the law" ahead of their own personal feelings/beliefs when arriving at a decision (which is why the judge isn't the only one who wouldn't want to see olds on a jury). And, no, I am not saying that either the prosecutors or the defense attorneys are idealistic enough to put this ahead of the "win" during jury selction.

One sad way to look at the injustice you rightfully identify in your civil rights era example is that those white jurors felt it was quite appropriate to nullify the protections under the law for black defendents in order to see that "true" justice was done.

As other have already said, unfair or unreasonable laws ought to be changed through the legislative process rather than ignored in the judicial process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top