Another gang robbery last week, a Lens Crafters
shop. Two enter, warning about pocketed guns.
One outside, in the car.
I fantasize, I'm outside, witness this, pull my Beretta,
hold it to the driver's head. "Face down, mofo, I will
put a window in you!" (hope he doesn't call my bluff)
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge
(and probably hate crime). Lawyer tells me to plead
guilty, what choice is there?
I say no, I'll make a case for jury nullification: the law
is unjust, applied in such a circumstance, and they
can vote their conscience. (the citizen disarming laws
are unjust in all cases, actually) I only need one
sympathetic juror to skate, right?
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge?
Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
Another gang robbery last week, a Lens Crafters
shop. Two enter, warning about pocketed guns.
One outside, in the car.
I fantasize, I'm outside, witness this, pull my Beretta,
hold it to the driver's head. "Face down, mofo, I will
put a window in you!" (hope he doesn't call my bluff)
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge
(and probably hate crime). Lawyer tells me to plead
guilty, what choice is there?
I say no, I'll make a case for jury nullification: the law
is unjust, applied in such a circumstance, and they
can vote their conscience. (the citizen disarming laws
are unjust in all cases, actually) I only need one
sympathetic juror to skate, right?
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
--
Rich
"RichD" wrote
Another gang robbery last week, a Lens Crafters
shop. Two enter, warning about pocketed guns.
One outside, in the car.
I fantasize, I'm outside, witness this, pull my Beretta,
hold it to the driver's head. "Face down, mofo, I will
put a window in you!" (hope he doesn't call my bluff)
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge
(and probably hate crime). Lawyer tells me to plead
guilty, what choice is there?
I say no, I'll make a case for jury nullification: the law
is unjust, applied in such a circumstance, and they
can vote their conscience. (the citizen disarming laws
are unjust in all cases, actually) I only need one
sympathetic juror to skate, right?
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
I think the big problem with your plan is that if Calif is indeed
the last communist country on earth (not sure what the people in
North Korea and Cuba think about that), what makes you think
you'll find that minimum one holdout juror that will go along with
your nullification scheme? Regardless of what you may think about California's laws (and I personally find them more socialistic
than communistic), you can't dispute that the laws are a function
of the people in the state who elect the people who enact those
laws, so I'm thinking most people in the jury pool are probably
already in the cult, so to speak.
Regarding nullification in general (not sure what the specific
laws are in California), I think that's one of those things you're
not supposed to bring up explicitly in court, meaning I don't
think you can make it a hallmark of your defense. The judge
always instructs juries to follow the law, so I don't think you
can really work in an overt appeal to nullification. That's
something juries usually figure out on their own or through
pre-trial commentary.
--
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,...
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,...
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The constitutions of something like 24 states expressly
permit juror nullification in criminal cases. California is not
among these states.
On August 17, Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,...
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The constitutions of something like 24 states expressly
permit juror nullification in criminal cases. California is not
among these states.
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
--
Rich
RichD wrote:
Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,...
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The constitutions of something like 24 states expressly
permit juror nullification in criminal cases. California is not
among these states.
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt
charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
Asked and answered. It depends on the state.
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
Asked and answered. It depends on the state.
Exactly. For example in California, a jury can certainly come to the conclusion that a particular law is unfair in a particular case and
vote to acquit a defendant even though they agree the defendant did
the illegal act charged. However the litigants are not allowed to
expressly tell the jury that they have that power, and can't ask the
jury to acquit on that basis.
On August 17, Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,...
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The constitutions of something like 24 states expresslyThe question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
permit juror nullification in criminal cases. California is not
among these states.
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
28th amendment: "At every criminal trial, prior to commencement, the presiding judge shall instruct the jury as follows: "If you feel the statute under which the defendant is charged, is inherently unjust, that no
person should be deprived of freedom or property for violation thereof,
you may, in good conscience, vote to acquit, regardless of the facts presented during these proceedings.""
For those like me, who see the Drug War, not the drugs, as the real
problem, this would be a means to resist. We have a million jailed,
how many are non-violent drug offenses? How many would be
incarcerated, if juries were informed, by the judge, that they can voter their conscience?
You've seen those those Youtube vids?
"POLICE CHASE AND SHOOT DRUG DEALER"
er, they shot a CVS pharmacist?
--
Rich
On August 25, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt
charge!" Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in
court?
Asked and answered. It depends on the state.
Exactly. For example in California, a jury can certainly come to
the conclusion that a particular law is unfair in a particular
case and vote to acquit a defendant even though they agree the
defendant did the illegal act charged. However the litigants are
not allowed to expressly tell the jury that they have that power,
and can't ask the jury to acquit on that basis.
Are there any precedent cases, analogous to the one described
above? i.e. a good samaritan intervenes, then charged with
possession of a concealed weapon.
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
I am not an attorney. Over the years I have read scholarly-sounding discussions
of jury nullification and found them interesting.
In California, I figure an attorney can do whatever she wants without telling the judge in advance.
The real question is: Will she get caught advocating that the jury break the law?
I would think an attorney that wants to continue in the profession in California will certainly
not be obvious about any argument for jury nullification she puts forth.
How are you (the client) going to bring this up in court? Take the stand and testify about
what happened and how you think the law as written is unjust? To do that, your attorney
would have to ask the right questions. When asking the questions, I think your attorney
perhaps be putting herself in jeopardy in doing so. The prosecution is going to object a lot
as well, it seems to me.
The state constitution language (in the roughly 24 states that permit jury nullification in criminal cases)
is short and sweet. For example, Indiana's Constitution says: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury
shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." Now I wonder how, and if, Indiana judges
instruct jurors about their right to define what the facts //and// the law are.
Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt
charge!" Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in
court?
I am not an attorney. Over the years I have read
scholarly-sounding discussions of jury nullification and found
them interesting.
In California, I figure an attorney can do whatever she wants
without telling the judge in advance. The real question is: Will
she get caught advocating that the jury break the law? I would
think an attorney that wants to continue in the profession in
California will certainly not be obvious about any argument for
jury nullification she puts forth. How are you (the client) going
to bring this up in court? Take the stand and testify about what
happened and how you think the law as written is unjust? To do
that, your attorney would have to ask the right questions. When
asking the questions, I think your attorney perhaps be putting
herself in jeopardy in doing so. The prosecution is going to
object a lot as well, it seems to me.
The state constitution language (in the roughly 24 states that
permit jury nullification in criminal cases) is short and sweet.
For example, Indiana's Constitution says: "In all criminal cases
whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and
the facts." Now I wonder how, and if, Indiana judges instruct
jurors about their right to define what the facts //and// the law
are.
28th amendment: "At every criminal trial, prior to commencement,
the presiding judge shall instruct the jury as follows: "If you
feel the statute under which the defendant is charged, is
inherently unjust, that no person should be deprived of freedom or
property for violation thereof, you may, in good conscience, vote
to acquit, regardless of the facts presented during these
proceedings.""
For those like me, who see the Drug War, not the drugs, as the
real problem, this would be a means to resist. We have a million
jailed, how many are non-violent drug offenses? How many would be incarcerated, if juries were informed, by the judge, that they can
voter their conscience?
Jury nullification is less about unjust statutes and more about a
prosecution being unjust under a particular set of circumstances. Even
if the jury unanimously thinks a defendant is technically guilty, if
they feel that punishing him under the specific circumstances is unjust,
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt
charge!" Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in
court?
I am not an attorney. Over the years I have read
scholarly-sounding discussions of jury nullification and found
them interesting.
In California, I figure an attorney can do whatever she wants
without telling the judge in advance. The real question is: Will
she get caught advocating that the jury break the law? I would
think an attorney that wants to continue in the profession in
California will certainly not be obvious about any argument for
jury nullification she puts forth. How are you (the client) going
to bring this up in court? Take the stand and testify about what
happened and how you think the law as written is unjust? To do
that, your attorney would have to ask the right questions. When
asking the questions, I think your attorney perhaps be putting
herself in jeopardy in doing so. The prosecution is going to
object a lot as well, it seems to me.
The state constitution language (in the roughly 24 states that
permit jury nullification in criminal cases) is short and sweet.
For example, Indiana's Constitution says: "In all criminal cases
whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and
the facts." Now I wonder how, and if, Indiana judges instruct
jurors about their right to define what the facts //and// the law
are.
28th amendment: "At every criminal trial, prior to commencement,
the presiding judge shall instruct the jury as follows: "If you
feel the statute under which the defendant is charged, is
inherently unjust, that no person should be deprived of freedom or
property for violation thereof, you may, in good conscience, vote
to acquit, regardless of the facts presented during these
proceedings.""
For those like me, who see the Drug War, not the drugs, as the
real problem, this would be a means to resist. We have a million
jailed, how many are non-violent drug offenses? How many would be
incarcerated, if juries were informed, by the judge, that they can
voter their conscience?
I agree with you on the drug war - it was created by Nixon, along
with his Southern Strategy, as a way to rile people up for political >purposes.
Jury nullification is less about unjust statutes and more about a
prosecution being unjust under a particular set of circumstances.
Even if the jury unanimously thinks a defendant is technically
guilty, if they feel that punishing him under the specific
circumstances is unjust, they can (and sometimes do) find the person
not guilty anyway. There are ways that a skilled defense attorney
can let the jury know that's an option without saying it in an
explicit way.
On August 26, Elle N wrote:
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt charge!"
Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in court?
I am not an attorney. Over the years I have read scholarly-sounding
discussions
of jury nullification and found them interesting.
In California, I figure an attorney can do whatever she wants without
telling the judge in advance.
The real question is: Will she get caught advocating that the jury break
the law?
I would think an attorney that wants to continue in the profession in
California will certainly
not be obvious about any argument for jury nullification she puts forth.
How are you (the client) going to bring this up in court? Take the stand
and testify about
what happened and how you think the law as written is unjust? To do that,
your attorney
would have to ask the right questions. When asking the questions, I think
your attorney
perhaps be putting herself in jeopardy in doing so. The prosecution is
going to object a lot
as well, it seems to me.
The state constitution language (in the roughly 24 states that permit
jury nullification in criminal cases)
is short and sweet. For example, Indiana's Constitution says: "In all
criminal cases whatever, the jury
shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." Now I wonder
how, and if, Indiana judges
instruct jurors about their right to define what the facts //and// the
law are.
28th amendment: "At every criminal trial, prior to commencement, the >presiding judge shall instruct the jury as follows: "If you feel the
statute
under which the defendant is charged, is inherently unjust, that no
person should be deprived of freedom or property for violation thereof,
you may, in good conscience, vote to acquit, regardless of the facts >presented during these proceedings.""
For those like me, who see the Drug War, not the drugs, as the real
problem, this would be a means to resist. We have a million jailed,
how many are non-violent drug offenses? How many would be
incarcerated, if juries were informed, by the judge, that they can voter >their conscience?
You've seen those those Youtube vids?
"POLICE CHASE AND SHOOT DRUG DEALER"
er, they shot a CVS pharmacist?
--
Rich
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually think about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons, sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I don't think anyone on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that murder is a crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of the
defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the prosecutor, issues surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury decided to ignore the law and find the defendant not guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the most famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most people don't normally think of it that way.
That used to happen a lot in the South when a white person killed a
black person, for example. Rich D's example is highly unlikely to
elicit that kind of emotional response.
Another gang robbery last week, a Lens Crafters
shop. Two enter, warning about pocketed guns.
One outside, in the car.
I fantasize, I'm outside, witness this, pull my Beretta,
hold it to the driver's head. "Face down, mofo, I will
put a window in you!" (hope he doesn't call my bluff)
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge
(and probably hate crime). Lawyer tells me to plead
guilty, what choice is there?
I say no, I'll make a case for jury nullification: the law
is unjust, applied in such a circumstance, and they
can vote their conscience. (the citizen disarming laws
are unjust in all cases, actually) I only need one
sympathetic juror to skate, right?
Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?
Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge? Is the judge
permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually
think about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons, sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I don't think anyone on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that murder is a crime was unjust. But because of other factors
- the fame of the defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the prosecutor, issues surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury
decided to ignore the law and find the defendant not guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the most famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most people don't normally think of it that way.
On 8/15/2023 5:25 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
That used to happen a lot in the South when a white person killed a
black person, for example. Rich D's example is highly unlikely to
elicit that kind of emotional response.
This is something of a myth. Those "nullifications" also usually
involved the prosecution intentionally presenting a very weak case.
Barry Gold wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
That used to happen a lot in the South when a white person
killed a black person, for example. Rich D's example is highly
unlikely to elicit that kind of emotional response.
This is something of a myth. Those "nullifications" also usually
involved the prosecution intentionally presenting a very weak
case.
What is your evidence for the assertion that Stuart's claim is
"something of a myth"?
Because before the 1960s, the intense and often violent bigotry of
the overwhelming majority of white Southerners towards Black
people seems pretty well-evidenced to me. If one believes this
bigotry did exist, then I do not see how one could assert that
juror nullification of the type Stuart describe is "something of a
myth."
I can believe bigoted white prosecutors did not do their duty. But
it seems at least as likely that juries might ignore their duty
even when the white prosecutor did all he could.
Possible example: It took three trials to convict Byron De La
Beckwith. (Two hung juries in the 1960s; De La Beckwith was free
for decades; new evidence led to conviction in 1994.
Stuart's (and my) claim this jury nullification could be a myth.
But I just have seen zero evidence to support this, and a lot of
evidence saying it sure seems likely (though again, not certain).
====
An academic's critical look at the media's suggestion (allegedly
showing the media's bias) that jury nullification occurred in the
OJ Simpson case (while the jurors themselves explained their
reasoning, indicating juror nullification did not take place): https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&c ontext=mjlr
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually
think
about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons,
sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore the
facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I don't
think anyone on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that murder
is
a crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of the
defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the prosecutor, issues
surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury decided to ignore the
law
and find the defendant not guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the
most
famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most people
don't
normally think of it that way.
I think there's a very real chance I would have come to the same conclusion >that the OJ Simpson criminal prosecution jury did: The prosecution did not >prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the subsequent civil suit, if
I were on the jury, I figure I would have found Simpson liable by a >'preponderance of the evidence.'
Rick wrote:
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we
usually think about nullification. Sometimes a jury just
decides for its own reasons, sometimes obvious and sometimes not
obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant
not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I don't think anyone
on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that murder is a
crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of
the defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the
prosecutor, issues surrounding race, whatever, that particular
jury decided to ignore the law and find the defendant not
guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the most famous and
notorious example of jury nullification, though most people don't
normally think of it that way.
Or maybe the Black jurors told the others some stories of their
own encounters with the police. And those stories, combined with
the fact that Mark Fuhrman lied about using the N-word, may have
convinced the rest of the jury that there was "reasonable doubt".
NOT proof of innocence, but the standard for criminal trials is
higher than for civil trials, which is why the later civil trial
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs.
"Elle N" wrote in message news:7d2b0edb-3f88-43c4-91fc-4f4287875cefn@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually
think
about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons,
sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore
the
facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I
don't
think anyone on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that
murder is
a crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of the
defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the prosecutor, issues
surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury decided to ignore
the law
and find the defendant not guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps
the most
famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most
people don't
normally think of it that way.
I think there's a very real chance I would have come to the same
conclusion that the OJ Simpson criminal prosecution jury did: The
prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the
subsequent civil suit, if I were on the jury, I figure I would have
found Simpson liable by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Interesting. I thought the forensics/DNA evidence against OJ was pretty compelling, and the defense argument that evidence was planted/tainted
by police was never proven. I wonder if the jury in the civil case was ever polled after the fact to determine if they would also have
convicted OJ if the standard had been "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
Barry Gold wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
That used to happen a lot in the South when a white person killed a
black person, for example. Rich D's example is highly unlikely to
elicit that kind of emotional response.
This is something of a myth. Those "nullifications" also usually
involved the prosecution intentionally presenting a very weak case.
What is your evidence for the assertion that Stuart's claim is
"something of a myth"?
Because before the 1960s, the intense and often violent bigotry of the
overwhelming majority of white Southerners towards Black people seems
pretty well-evidenced to me. If one believes this bigotry did exist,
then I do not see how one could assert that juror nullification of the
type Stuart describe is "something of a myth."
I can believe bigoted white prosecutors did not do their duty. But it
seems at least as likely that juries might ignore their duty even when
the white prosecutor did all he could.
Possible example: It took three trials to convict Byron De La Beckwith.
(Two hung juries in the 1960s; De La Beckwith was free for decades; new
evidence led to conviction in 1994.
Stuart's (and my) claim this jury nullification could be a myth. But I
just have seen zero evidence to support this, and a lot of evidence
saying it sure seems likely (though again, not certain).
====
An academic's critical look at the media's suggestion (allegedly
showing the media's bias) that jury nullification occurred in the OJ
Simpson case (while the jurors themselves explained their reasoning,
indicating juror nullification did not take place):
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&c
ontext=mjlr
Thanks Elle - in particular I was thinking of the Emmett Till trial,
which was apparently vigorously prosecuted, but the jury came back with
a "not guilty" verdict within one hour.
https://famous-trials.com/emmetttill/1755-home
As for Mark Fuhrman, I recall one pundit commenting after the trial,
"too bad they framed a guilty man."
On 8/27/2023 8:10 PM, Rick wrote:
"Elle N" wrote in message
news:7d2b0edb-3f88-43c4-91fc-4f4287875cefn@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:33:56 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually
think
about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons, >>>> sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore
the
facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I
don't
think anyone on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that
murder is
a crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of the
defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the prosecutor, issues
surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury decided to ignore the >>>> law
and find the defendant not guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the >>>> most
famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most people >>>> don't
normally think of it that way.
I think there's a very real chance I would have come to the same
conclusion that the OJ Simpson criminal prosecution jury did: The
prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the
subsequent civil suit, if I were on the jury, I figure I would have
found Simpson liable by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Interesting. I thought the forensics/DNA evidence against OJ was pretty
compelling, and the defense argument that evidence was planted/tainted by
police was never proven. I wonder if the jury in the civil case was
ever polled after the fact to determine if they would also have convicted
OJ if the standard had been "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The defense doesn't have to "prove" their argument. All they need to do is >raise a reasonable doubt. (Actually, that applies to the prosecution's case >as a whole. If the other evidence against Simpson proved him guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt, then they could go ahead and convict him. But if the
DNA was a key part of the case, with the other evidence insufficient to >convict, then they did the right thing.
I'm not sure how much the grandstanding "if it doesn't fit, you must
acquit" had on the outcome. Wikiquote calls it an "enthymeme", which has
two meanings per Wiktionary.
Jury nullification is less about unjust statutes and more about a >prosecution being unjust under a particular set of circumstances.
Even if the jury unanimously thinks a defendant is technically
guilty, if they feel that punishing him under the specific
circumstances is unjust, they can (and sometimes do) find the person
not guilty anyway. There are ways that a skilled defense attorney
can let the jury know that's an option without saying it in an
explicit way.
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we usually think about nullification. Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons, sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant not guilty.
Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. In its own way, that is perhaps the most famous and notorious example of jury nullification, though most people don't normally think of it that way.
Jury nullification is less about unjust statutes and more about a
prosecution being unjust under a particular set of circumstances.
Even if the jury unanimously thinks a defendant is technically
guilty, if they feel that punishing him under the specific
circumstances is unjust, they can (and sometimes do) find the person
not guilty anyway.
Sometimes a jury just decides for its own reasons,
sometimes obvious and sometimes not obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. But because of other factors - the fame of the defendant, the length of the trial, not liking
the prosecutor, issues surrounding race, whatever, that particular jury decided to ignore the law and find the defendant not guilty.
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
On August 25, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The question is, does my lawyer have to inform the judge that
we plan to use a jury nullification argument? Then can he
respond "Not in my court room! I'll slap you with a contempt
charge!" Then what if he obeys, but I bring it up myself, in
court?
Asked and answered. It depends on the state.
Exactly. For example in California, a jury can certainly come to
the conclusion that a particular law is unfair in a particular
case and vote to acquit a defendant even though they agree the
defendant did the illegal act charged. However the litigants are
not allowed to expressly tell the jury that they have that power,
and can't ask the jury to acquit on that basis.
Are there any precedent cases, analogous to the one described
above? i.e. a good samaritan intervenes, then charged with
possession of a concealed weapon.
I remember a case from years ago in New York, when a woman was
savagely attacked and defended herself with a gun that she was
carrying but didn't have a permit for. She was sent to prison, not
for protecting herself but for carrying the gun illegally.
I don't practice criminal law, so I am not aware of other cases in
that mold, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
Rick wrote:
It's not always an unjust statute, though that is the way we
usually think about nullification. Sometimes a jury just
decides for its own reasons, sometimes obvious and sometimes not
obvious, that they want to ignore the facts and find a defendant
not guilty. Case-in-point: OJ Simpson. I don't think anyone
on that jury necessarily thought the law stating that murder is a
crime was unjust. But because of other factors - the fame of
the defendant, the length of the trial, not liking the
prosecutor, issues surrounding race, whatever, that particular
jury decided to ignore the law and find the defendant not
guilty. In its own way, that is perhaps the most famous and
notorious example of jury nullification, though most people don't
normally think of it that way.
Or maybe the Black jurors told the others some stories of their
own encounters with the police. And those stories, combined with
the fact that Mark Fuhrman lied about using the N-word, may have
convinced the rest of the jury that there was "reasonable doubt".
NOT proof of innocence, but the standard for criminal trials is
higher than for civil trials, which is why the later civil trial
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs.
There were a number of problems with the OJ trial. Among others, the
famous glove incident was not supposed to happen. Christopher Darden
(who incidentally was in my class in law school) was instructed NOT
to introduce the glove into evidence. But he did it anyway, with
predictable results.
As for Mark Fuhrman, I recall one pundit commenting after the trial,
"too bad they framed a guilty man."
This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,
the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge
"the last communist country on earth"? What about Cuba? China? North Korea?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 463 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 147:20:45 |
| Calls: | 9,382 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,558 |
| Messages: | 6,095,130 |