[3947] in Central_America
Re: New quotes for Fri Dec 20
jik@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jik@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Dec 21 23:54:52 1991
Rich's description of jury nullification is basically correct -- in
any trial, the law being applied is on trial as much as the defendant,
and a juror has the right to vote not guilty because he feels that the
law being applied is unjust. This principle *has* stood up to the
Supreme Court's scrutiny, I believe.
Jury nullification is not directly discussed in the Constitution or in
any related documents. It has, however, been established by
precedent.
Ironically, I believe the issue of informing jurors about
nullification has also come before the Supreme Court, and they *have*
ruled (if my memory serves) that people can be held in contempt of
court for doing so. I believe the particular cases involved lawyers
arguing before the jury that their clients should be found innocent
because of unjust laws, and the judges finding them in contempt as a
result.
Yes, it's inconsistent. But then again, much in our legal system is
inconsistent. You could argue that the judicial system does not want
to advertise jury nullification, because they do not want to put that
kind of power in the hands of the people. And if you argued it, I
might even agree with you :-).
In addition to not mentioning jury nullification, the booklet does its
best to dissuade jurors from considering any possibilities of that
sort, talking about the "rule of law" and how the jury must always
follow the judge's instructions. For example, "The jury does *not*
decide the rules of law to be applied to the facts in the case."
"After all of the evidence has been presented to the jury, the judge
tells the jury the proper rules of law required to resolve the case.
When the judge tells the jury what the rules of law are, this is
called the judge's charge or judge's instructions to the jury."
As for actually *applying* jury nullification, there are two important
things to keep in mind if you are going to be doing jury duty: (1)
DON'T say anything that might imply that you know about, and believe
in, jury nullification, or that you believe the law being applied is
unjust, while being impanelled, unless you are asked directly about
it. That is, don't lie, but don't volunteer the information either.
They may ask you if you feel there is anything preventing you from
being an impartial, unbiased juror in the case; the answer to that
question is clearly no, since you believe that jury nullification is
part of the duties of a juror. (2) If you choose to vote "not guilty"
because you disagree with the law on trial, it is generally a bad idea
to *say* that. "I won't vote guilty because I am not convinced beyond
a reasonable doubt that he did it," is a reasonable thing to say.
