Ever Heard of Jury Nullification?

[HoneyBadger]

I had never heard of this and it presents some interesting, albeit problematic, points.

[Jamnanc]

So someone kills their wife or kids killer, say they find them and the cops don't. Could you convict them if they were charged with 1st degree murder? Even if it's obvious they did it, I'd have a hard time since I would probably do the same thing see. That's why they tack on lesser charges, so we can cop out and still convict of something.

[Roger Ronas]

yes Jury nullification is for when the jurors think that a law is unjust. Or the punishment is far greater than the crime itself.
Used to be that judges would tell jurors about nullification but it seems now a days they want to hide it from them.

[Wulf202]

If you say you know what it is youre removed from the jury pool immediately

[10mm-man]

How about during a defendants personal right to be a witness, and talk; he decides to tell the jury about nullification.

[pickenup]

Every prospective juror "should" be told what this is.

[HoneyBadger]

How about during a defendants personal right to be a witness, and talk; he decides to tell the jury about nullification.

I like your thinking!

Every prospective juror "should" be told what this is.

Of course... Thats why more people need to watch this video.

[earplug]

Jury nullification is one of our last weapons against bad government.

[Gman]

Jury nullification is one of our last weapons against bad government.

+1

[MarkCO]

Yes, I have heard of it, I even took a course on it. It is complex, and it is being discussed more than you might think.

So a man is walking down the street in LA, with a concealed weapon. He breaks no law of any kind and has no record. He just happens to witness a hit and run and calls 911. Police arrive and ask him for a statement. They also ask if he has any weapons to which is answers in the affirmative. He is arrested and charged for carrying a concealed weapon. Lets skip ahead...

He ends up in a criminal trial and the prosecution has a slam dunk case. The Jurors are instructed to apply the law and are read the statute he violated. In light of their oath to apply the law, can the jury consider the constitution and not just the law the charged man violated? Does not the reading of the Miranda rights invoke elements of the Constitution? Yes and Yes. The question is only if a jury member thinks about the whole law, not just the statute pointed out. Then does the jury believe that the 2 laws are in conflict and assign a higher value to the constitution than the statute?

Having spent a good deal of time working on legal cases and testifying, yes, there are monkey wrenches. In some cases, if I were to say the word "insurance" while on the stand as an expert, a mistrial would be declared. But also realize that the jury can ask the judge questions and even some types of witnesses. I would say in about 1/3 of the cases I have testified at, the Jury has requested the Judge to ask me a question. In many cases, the question(s) was insightful, but not one I could have been asked by one attorney or the other.

The biggest point for Jurors is to think. Be impartial and apply the law but don't ignore the totality of the law.

Getting released from Jury duty...my best man at my wedding as well as several other friends are LE, I have trained LEOs, Investigators and Prosecutors, I have a professional license, an engineering degree and I have testified as an expert in criminal and civil cases...I was seated on a Jury and voted the foreman. The experience was educational.