Jury Nullification

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

Attached: Jury Nullification.jpg (1920x1080, 271K)

Other urls found in this thread:

lawstreetmedia.com/issues/law-and-politics/jury-nullification/
nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Attached: Unjust Laws.jpg (432x239, 37K)

Attached: Law.jpg (300x131, 9K)

Like O.J. Simpson's murder trial

The part that bothers me most is that jurors are never told of this. We wouldn't half the laws that we have now.

Jury nullification is retarded for a few reasons:
1. There are lots of laws you won't be told, it is directly told to you that you can vote not guilty in favor of "feels"
2. Some states have juries that do not require unanimous verdicts
3. You, in all likelihood, will never serve on a jury that has a question of jury nullification. Most drug trials are misdemeanors unless dealers and people ask for bench trials in those cases. Additionally, you are more likely to get assigned to a DUI or wife beating trial. I doubt you want to let someone go because you agree with wifebeating.
4. The law is not nullified, otherwise pot would be legal because of one federal juror. It means that in that one case, you let one guilty jackass go.
5. 90%+ of all cases are plead out.
6. Your job is to decide on the facts, if one is in favor of jury nullification, you must be in favor of jury VILIFICATION, meaning people vote guilty even when they believe the person is not guilty.

Jury nullification is a meme passed around facebook by sovereign citizens and teenagers.

Attached: neet retard.png (409x409, 157K)

>Return


Yes it's quite something isn't it?

It sets precedent.

You are, you never have to find anyone guilty, therefore you are told you can find a person not guilty.
additionally, it doesn't nullify the full law. If I refuse to vote guilty on someone having possession of an automatic weapon, does that legalize automatic weapons? No.

Setting precedent is how laws are shaped

Not in 99% of trials. A pattern sets a precedent. They don't say in the record why people are found not guilty unless it matters (not guilty by reason of insanity). The prosecutor will just assume he didn't have enough proof or the judge will think the defense attorney did her job well.

No but it sets a legal precedent which will affect the law ultimately, as a point of reference for starters.

You're throwing around hogwash figures as if I am supposed to entertain them by virtue of your artifice of authority on the topic, I shall not.

Again. Not really unless it is a pattern. No one asks the jury why they made their choice, they don't have to justify it to anyone.
Please stop this bad legal advice.
What is your legal training exactly? Just curious.

>OJ Simpson

Whats that user? Ohhh yeah jury nullification has been utilized effectivley countless times.

This is JUROR ADVICE.

Are you seriously suggesting people shouldn't know of this?

My legal training is none of your business.

>Every case where a guilty person walked was jury nullification
No. Jury nullification has a very specific meaning. It means you let someone go knowing they were guilty because you disagreed with the law.
The Prosecutor did a shit job, he didn't explain DNA (a new tech at the time) and he allowed that shitshow with the glove.
For the record, it is not a hogwash. Here are calculations
lawstreetmedia.com/issues/law-and-politics/jury-nullification/
Lets be generous and say 10% of all trials involve jury nullification.
94-97% of all trials in america are plea bargained
nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html
Round those numbers to your favor for simplification lets say 10% of all cases go to trial and 10% of those go to jury nullification. That would mean 99% of all cases do not end in jury nullification.
In short you have no training. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. People can know about this, but people should also know the truth and you are spreading bullshit.

Sheep detected

But user, the idea behind it is to promote Justice. The idea is held that Lady Justice is blind, casting her sword not on those who have done wrong, but those who have broken the law. This often lines up but not always. The Jury nullification was the solution. If a man kills a criminal who was able to plague a community because the law had failed, that man should not be killed for the laws had failed.

Laws are to improve the community user. If one must break the law to improve the community then the law has utterly failed.

>Do juries have the right to nullify?

Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

Juries have the right to, that does not mean it nullifies the law and it does not make it a good idea.
In all likelihood, you will end up on a jury for these crimes
>Boring civil law
>Business laws
>DUI/DWI
>Domestic violence
>Drug dealers getting busted
>other kind of petty crime
I never said you don't have the right, but you seem to be gravely misinformed on what it actually is
Again, it doesn't nullify the law, it just nullifies that one particular case.
Do you also believe that a jury should be nullified if a white man kills a black man but the jury is racist? What if the jury is full of black nationalist racists should there be jury vilification?
Maybe it is better to focus on the truth rather than your own biases.

in that instance is a law against being able to kill people that are a plague to society a failure? should we be allowed to kill people who do us wrong?l

It nullifies the law in that one particular case which sets a legal precedent which can be returned to in other proceedings as well as informing the public generally.

Yes, there is the possibility of a man on trial with a biased jury, but the jury is taken at random for the sake of preventing this.
And It isn't supposed to change the laws. It's for the sake of making exceptions, not changing laws.

I will say this one more time.
A pattern will set a precedent for a judge to consider. Judges are interpreters of the law, they are not legislators. They can't say "well marijuana laws are totes unpopular lets get rid of them."
A pattern shows the legislator that a law is unpopular.
No. Precedent. Is, Set. By. You. Voting. Not. Guilty. In. A. Non-landmark. Case.
No one asks why you voted not guilty I don't understand what part of this you don't get.
You will never be on a jury for a law most people disagree with, neither will I or anyone else in this thread. Best case you are on a DWI jury.
Yes, you get it. And hopefully now you understand why you should only focus on the truth. Imagine your ass on the stand, you wouldn't want jurors deciding on anything but the facts.

It is up to the jury to decide. The idea of a jury is to add a human element to the iron word of the law.

>t. scared statist

Patterns begin with singular precedents, please don't be obtuse.

And again, it is unpopular for a reason. Most people on juries want to take facts into account over feels.
Genuinely curious, how old are you?

Listen, I see you as sitting in a Newark office.

Am I correct?

Hey, good thread, user.

Nope.
How old are you?

Empathy is the cornerstone of a civilised society.

Did you miss the memo?

>I doubt you want to let someone go because you agree with wifebeating.
Do you know where you are?

Empathy is where human rights arise from.

Right?

No. Practicality is. I feel bad for the person who has to spend $200 because he went 5 miles over, but if everyone went 5 over it would endanger the public.

answer the question. How old are you?

That's just silly, you're being absurd.

This isn't about parking tickets, it's about medicine.

Ok you are either 14, trolling or genuinely retarded. I would encourage you to actually do your research on the criminal justice system, and not from www.madeupbullshit.com
oh, and knock off the reddit spacing.

HB 133 - AS INTRODUCED. 2017 SESSION. 17-0088. 09/08. HOUSE BILL 133. AN ACT relative to a jury's determination as to the applicability of law.

Attached: jury-nullification-new-hampshire-122816.png (1200x628, 737K)

I think you are a pompous imbecile who lacks critical thinking skills while maintaining a high aptitude for regurgitate facility.