I Think The Judge Thought I Was An Abomination

[JEDIYoda]

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.

I also had the same sitiuation. I was picked to be on the Jury of a 21year old hispanic who was accused of beating his wife. Long story short. She did not want to DA to charge her husband and I thought that he was innocent. So when it came time for the judge to ask a few questions I was asked if I would uphold the letter of the law?
I said to the judge..that there are many stoopid laws and I could not in good conciense apply the law just because supposedly it was to be applied.

Of course the prosecuting attorney had me dismissed.


I have a friend who is a Judge and I asked him to tell me what came of this case......the man was acquitted...

 

[JEDIYoda]

The letter of the law is NOT always correct..

 

[dawp]

Fuck, this reminds me that I need to put a reminder on everything that I have jury duty the first week of May.

So do I, except mine last for the whole month of May and is for the US Circuit Court here in KC. In fact, the Federal Court House is across the street from my workplace so I have no parking worries.

 

[J-Money]

Grats, now that you are not there to fight for that father you were replaced by a juror who will follow the law and will convict the father.

You gave the father a death sentence.

 

[Bateluer]

I never understood the lengths people will go to avoid jury duty. Cowardly, shows a lack of personal honor and responsibility.

 

[dawp]

I never understood the lengths people will go to avoid jury duty. Cowardly, shows a lack of personal honor and responsibility.

I agree, but I do have issues with some laws as written and I'm debating whether to stay silent on that or to admit that I do not agree with the law when I have jury duty next month.

I think the lousy pay you get for it has a lot to do with it. not everyone can take a major hit in the pocketbook for the duration of a long trial. luckily my employer does have jury duty benefits.

 

[ichy]

I also believe in reverse jury-nullification. Maryland puts their court records online, so if I'm ever on a jury for a guy with a bunch of priors I'll vote to convict regardless of the facts of the case.

That being said I'd also refuse to convict anyone accused solely of non-violent crimes involving soft drugs. Heroin dealers can still rot in prison as far as I'm concerned though.

 

[ichy]

So do I, except mine last for the whole month of May and is for the US Circuit Court here in KC. In fact, the Federal Court House is across the street from my workplace so I have no parking worries.

Actually it's US District Court, Circuit Court in the Federal system = appellate courts.

 

[SearchMaster]

I never understood the lengths people will go to avoid jury duty. Cowardly, shows a lack of personal honor and responsibility.

That's not at all what Olds did here.

 

[Lean L]

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.

TLDR

I agree with the title although I hate the unneeded capitalizations.

 

[soulcougher73]

Just because we have laws doesnt mean you have to like them or agree with them..hell or even follow them.

Good for you.

 

[highland145]

An abomination? He must have heard about the basement.

Better than an obamanation.

 

[Taughnter]

That was really stupid, you should have just lied, then argued the guy was innocent if you felt he was.

If he actually believes what he told the judge, yes. If he's trying to get out of jury duty, no.

 

[SandEagle]

Interesting.

stop lyin.

 

[Taughnter]

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.

I think you probably agree that in a perfect system, with just laws, jury nullification should never occur. It only makes sense if the laws or they way they are enforced are not "fair". That's obviously subjective, though. I think it's pretty clear to a lot of people that, for various reasons, it doesn't make sense to convict a person.

But then there's always the alternative view: We're "a nation of laws, not men". We live in a society with rules. You may not like those rules, but you have to follow them to be a part of that society otherwise you face the consequences. We have a lot of ways to protest laws we don't like, but violation of them is generally not an acceptable way to protest them.

I'm not saying either way is "right", but the average person, in my opinion, doesn't understand enough to appropriately apply jury nullification, even if many people on this forum might.

 

[Bibble]

Olds in court? Didn't Biggie write a song about this?

At my arraignment, note for the plaintiff,
Your daughter's tied up in Olds' basement
Face it, not guilty...

Anyways, my buddy had a somewhat similar experience a few weeks ago. He was selected for the jury initially for civil case involving a car crash, but when being interviewed he said he didn't think such cases warranted going to court unless there was major injury (which there wasn't). Not only was he let go, but half of the others who were selected repeated his answer and also had to be excused.

 

[jonks]

Jury nullification is pretty useless if you admit up front you consider it an option. The power of JN lies only in its stealth usage.

 

[TheVrolok]

Now it's my turn to say: incorrect.
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.

This is absolutely the best way to "fix" the system, without a shadow of a doubt. Theory is one thing, but we live in the real world, and it just doesn't work that way.

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.

Those white jurors were not taking part in jury nullification, though, as the preponderance of evidence (real, or most likely manufactured through false witness) pointed to a guilty verdict. The jurors "true" justice (justice of racism) was being carried out from outside the juror's box, and this is why nullification was not necessary for them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

It's not retarded. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case. Just putting up a police officer to give testimony does not in itself prove anything.

 

[CPA]

I was always told that the jury nullification argument is the one to use if you ever want out of jury duty.

 

[SearchMaster]

Jury nullification is written into the Georgia constitution so I don't know how well that would work to get out of JD here.

 

[olds]

I wasn't trying to get out of jury duty, I was answering his question. It might not of been cool if I went the nullification route and then the judge asked me why I didn't say something when he asked if we had any issues with following the letter of the law.

 

[HeXen]

i just said i was racist against all races. for some reason they never called me

 

[chusteczka]

I hope your stand on jury nullification was related to the case. 😛

Not the case we were there for. I didn't want to prejudice any other jurors.

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.

I did not understand why you would make a stand on jury nullification for a reason not involved with the case at hand until reading your latest statement.

I wasn't trying to get out of jury duty, I was answering his question. It might not of been cool if I went the nullification route and then the judge asked me why I didn't say something when he asked if we had any issues with following the letter of the law.

I still think it odd for someone to state their objection to a matter not related to the case at hand but can at least now understand your thinking behind your action. Your statement concerned a specific and unrelated aspect of a very large legal system, making it seem as if you have closed your mind (or lost respect for) the legal system as a whole.

It can be a difficult task for those enforcing the law to uphold their responsibility to protect the people when the people are not interested in prosecuting law breakers, especially for the clear social problem of youth gangs.

If in the judge's position, I may have been similarly annoyed with such a situation.

 

[olds]

I did not understand why you would make a stand on jury nullification for a reason not involved with the case at hand until reading your latest statement.



I still think it odd for someone to state their objection to a matter not related to the case at hand but can at least now understand your thinking behind your action. Your statement concerned a specific and unrelated aspect of a very large legal system, making it seem as if you have closed your mind (or lost respect for) the legal system as a whole.

It can be a difficult task for those enforcing the law to uphold their responsibility to protect the people when the people are not interested in prosecuting law breakers, especially for the clear social problem of youth gangs.

If in the judge's position, I may have been similarly annoyed with such a situation.

I don't have much respect for the system. I don't believe the DA's office cares if they get the right person. They'll take anyone. Have a crime? We need someone to blame it on so our numbers look good.