• jury nullification

    From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 14 15:43:29 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to r_delaney2001@yahoo.com on Tue Aug 15 09:59:33 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> 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)

    I think you can adequately intimidate the driver with your Beretta, but
    a) once he puts his face down, if he's inside and your outside the car,
    you may not be able to actually touch his head with the gun. Will he
    regather his courage then?

    b) more importantly, what will happen when the two inside leave the
    store, carrying big bags of lenses? They probably have guns.

    This being Cal., the last communist country on earth,

    Not Laos?

    the gummit will hit me with a hidden weapon charge

    There is a prima facie case for that, is there not?

    (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

    That might well work.

    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?

    AFAIK

    Now, the legal questions: if I tell my lawyer, is he
    obliged to reveal it, in conferences with the prosecution?

    Tell your lawyer what? That the laws are unjust? That you want jury nullification?

    Are they obliged to reveal it to the judge?

    I don't think so.

    Is the judge
    permitted to disallow it, if he's a commie?

    Commies can disallow anything they want. That's one of the advantages
    of being a commie. They don't even require a unanimous guity verdict,
    right? So you need 4 jurors to vote for acquittal, not just 1.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 15 12:09:57 2023
    "RichD" wrote in message news:82a35602-bc83-4609-9bff-83e7da1778cdn@googlegroups.com...

    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

    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.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Aug 15 17:25:45 2023
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
    "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.

    If you just get one juror to object when evidence of a crime is
    clear, that won't be of much help. Because unless the verdict is
    unanimous, the defendant can be tried again. So the action has to be
    so compelling that a unanimous jury will vote to acquit even when
    guilt is clear.

    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.

    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.

    --





    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 17 07:51:28 2023
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 5:43:33 PM UTC-5, RichD 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Elle N on Thu Aug 24 10:52:27 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Aug 25 09:38:19 2023
    On 8/24/2023 10:52 AM, RichD wrote:
    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


    Asked and answered. It depends on the state.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Roy on Fri Aug 25 14:13:57 2023
    Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
    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.

    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.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sat Aug 26 07:14:03 2023
    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.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Aug 26 07:15:22 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:52:32 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    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?

    I am not an attorney. Over the years I have read scholarly-sounding discussions of jury nullification and found them interesting. Like in the New York Times (2011) and the New Yorker (1994).

    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." (I am just parroting stuff from the net.) Now I wonder how, and if, Indiana judges instruct jurors about their right to define what the facts //and// the law are.

    1.5 cents

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Aug 26 16:03:47 2023
    On 8/26/2023 3:54 PM, RichD wrote:

    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



    There is no 28th amendment. A number of amendments have been proposed
    but nothing is in progress. I don't think the number is assigned until
    it is approved and ratified.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Aug 26 15:54:48 2023
    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.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Elle N on Sat Aug 26 15:54:09 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Aug 26 21:43:54 2023
    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.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sun Aug 27 07:31:30 2023
    On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 21:43:54 -0700, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

    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,

    I'd happily let a murderer walk to avoid the death penalty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sun Aug 27 07:33:52 2023
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsB06CD7AD54018avocatstuyahoofr@130.133.4.11...

    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.



    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.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 27 07:34:24 2023
    "RichD" wrote in message news:0e02aa7f-9a0b-4866-8b68-d908c22bdfean@googlegroups.com...

    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

    One problem with this is that during jury selection for drug trials, the prosecutor will always ask a prospective juror how they feel about drug
    laws, and if you say falsely that you support the law and have no trouble convicting someone who is shown to violate the law, you will make yourself
    look bad if you turn around and find the defendant not guilty. I'm
    assuming this is a true nullification case where the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. You won't be prosecuted for perjury, because you can always claim later that you honestly thought the defendant was not guilty
    based on facts, but you will show the world that you are basically a liar,
    and that could come back to hurt you in other ways.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to Rick on Sun Aug 27 09:39:13 2023
    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.'

    Sitting in the peanut gallery, but trying to be studious about it, I predicted the acquittal of George Zimmerman (the killer of Trayvon Martin). The evidence that Martin was atop Zimmerman and bashing Zimmerman's brains out against the pavement was too
    strong.

    George Floyd's murderer Derek Chauvin was rightly IMO convicted of two different counts of murder and a third count of manslaughter. I am sorry the sentence was not the maximum (30 years). I am sorry sentencing guidelines were not more severe.

    Simultaneously it has not gone unnoticed by me that the overwhelming majority of police shootings, during traffic stops, occur because of non-cooperation with police instructions. Whence many times police are not even prosecuted or if they are, they
    often are acquitted.

    These cases are complicated. As the line goes, armchair quarterbacking might be fun but it's also not realistic.

    I think it's important to acknowledge that jurors are selected by //both// sides.

    I think it's important to acknowledge that the masses do not (1) sit in the jurors' chairs and and (2) observe every moment of testimony, up close and personal.

    I am far less concerned about jury nullification (over which I have no control) than I am about the fact that the more money one has, the more likely one is to have a legal dispute go in one's favor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sun Aug 27 09:41:43 2023
    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.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Aug 27 09:41:16 2023
    On 8/14/2023 3:43 PM, 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?

    "the last communist country on earth"? What about Cuba? China? North
    Korea? [China is nominally communist, and definitely a dictatorship, but
    these days has what economists call a "mixed economy" -- some areas are
    still under communism, but others have a limited form of capitalism
    (although I doubt the Chinese Government calls it that).

    I might also note that communist countries do not generally have
    thriving economies. If CA were a country, it would have the 5th largest
    GDP in the world.

    As for the legal question, a trial strategy is not a crime, so the
    crime/fraud exception to lawyer-client privilege does not apply.

    But your lawyer would probably tell you that if you try to argue for nullification, the judge will shut you down. The best you can do in that situation is try to make the jury sympathetic without explicitly
    mentioning nullification.

    And no, you do not need just one juror to "skate" (be acquitted). You
    need either all 12 or, in some states, 8 or 9 for acquittal. If you
    convince just one, you end up with a mistrial ("hung jury") and the
    prosecution can try again. Most of the time, if two or three trials end
    in hung juries the prosecution will give up, but there is no guarantee.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Sun Aug 27 10:48:55 2023
    On 8/27/2023 7:33 AM, 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.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sun Aug 27 12:47:27 2023
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:41:46 AM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
    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.

    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&context=mjlr

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Elle N on Sun Aug 27 20:12:36 2023
    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


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 27 20:10:37 2023
    "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".

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sun Aug 27 20:13:07 2023
    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."

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Mon Aug 28 01:19:57 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Mon Aug 28 09:37:50 2023
    On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:12:36 -0700, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

    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

    https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/arraignment-of-18-of-21-men- implicated-in-murder-of-james-chaney-andrew

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Mon Aug 28 11:26:52 2023
    On 8/27/2023 8:13 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    As for Mark Fuhrman, I recall one pundit commenting after the trial,
    "too bad they framed a guilty man."

    That sounds like a perfect summary of the trial.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Mon Aug 28 11:22:55 2023
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:uchb4u$11sf2$4@dont-email.me...

    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.

    Funny thing about that - I watched that scene in real-time on my TV (along
    with millions of others) and it seemed to me the glove actually fit just
    fine but OJ was hamming it up by pretending it didn't fit.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Rick on Mon Aug 28 11:27:21 2023
    On August 27, Rick wrote:
    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.

    Very good! I thought I was the only one who sees it that way.

    The jury wasn't judging the law, as jury nullification is
    normally defined, it was a protest against the rampaging
    behavior of LAPD; "if you behave like that, we won't convict."
    Which is within their right, a form of nullification.

    And the deliberate result of OJ's team strategy, who re-framed
    the trial as a referendum on LAPD. Brilliantly. And a salient
    example of two standards of justice, for rich and poor - if OJ
    hadn't a thick wallet, he'd be in the state pen today -


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Rick on Mon Aug 28 13:16:10 2023
    On August 27, Rick wrote:
    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.

    Coming soon to your teevee screen - the Trump trials! Wherein,
    the defense shall establish the 4 year Deep State conspiracy
    against the defendant (cf. the Durham report), abetted by
    the east coast media. Then imploring the jury to acquit, in
    protest, as a nullification.

    Fully with their right -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Thu Aug 31 11:01:10 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:54:48 -0700 (PDT),
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

    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.

    I can see that woman's conviction more than RichD's. Of course she's
    going to defend herself and the gun probably helped a lot, so she's
    ahead that she had the gun that day. But she still had it and she's
    guilty. Still, if she got injured more than just one pop in the cheek
    by the bad guy, even though the legal system hadn't wronged her, a bad
    guy had, an aquittal would be some sort of cosmic justice.

    But in RichD's case, the gun guy could have kept his secret and no one
    would have known. There it could depend on what he intervened in. If
    the bad guy is just yelling at some little woman but hasn't hit her, and
    the good samaritan waves his gun around to get the bad guy to back off,
    instead of just asking him to back off, I might think he mostly just
    enjoyed waving his gun around. OTOH if the bad guy had hit her and was
    about to hit her again, a gun if present would definitely be useful and
    the gun guy was exposing his illegal carry to help someone else, not
    himself.

    The second guy should be acquitted. Somewhere in the middle it flips.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Mon Sep 4 07:06:28 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:13:07 -0700 (PDT),
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

    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.

    And the fact that Fuhrman took the evidence home for the night instead
    of checking it in. I can see why one would do that. It's late, it's
    been a longer than 8-hour shift, you want to go home, and if everyone
    seemed trustworthy, the defendant wouldnt' find out about it and
    everyone else would let it go. I don't even know how one could fix the evidence to more implicate Simpson, but the mere fact that it wasn't
    turned in when it should have been looks bad.

    So even though I think he's guilty, there seems to me to have been
    sufficient reason to acquit, and not really jury nullification. It was
    a unanimous acquittal, right?

    As for Mark Fuhrman, I recall one pundit commenting after the trial,
    "too bad they framed a guilty man."

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Mon Sep 11 20:51:17 2023
    On August 27, Barry Gold wrote:
    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?

    https://www.swoknews.com/ap/national/san-jose-church-that-paid-1-2-million-in-covid-fines-is-now-suing-county/article_072a5fe2-591a-5420-ae17-72f0ddba78b7.html

    In Cuba etc. churchgoers enjoy freedom and privacy, without
    Big Brother' s all seeing eye upon them.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/business/fast-food-council-california/index.html

    In Cuba etc. firms and employees negotiate and set their own
    terms, free of state dictatorship.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)