Serving on Juries

[Military Man]

Remember when you are on a jury, you do not have to convict anyone of anything.
If you donot like the law or think things are unfair-DO NOT CONVICT

Nothing the Government, Judge or anyone else can do about it.

[ronwill]

It's called jury nullification.

[NDS]

It's called jury nullification.

And if you talk about it, ask about it, or hint that you have even heard the term somewhere you will find your behind off the jury so fast your head will swim.

Judges don't like their instructions to be ignored or modified by mere citizens.

IOW -- be quiet about it if you decide to do it.

[ronwill]

And if you talk about it, ask about it, or hint that you have even heard the term somewhere you will find your behind off the jury so fast your head will swim.

Judges don't like their instructions to be ignored or modified by mere citizens.

IOW -- be quiet about it if you decide to do it.

I know but it's been spoken of on television and even this site. Jury nullification isn't really ignoring a judges instructions it's more like protesting a wrong law.

[nogods]

Jury nullification is a phenomena tolerated by our judicial system. Jurors can't be told about it by the court or the attorneys involved in the case, but if one or more jurors know about it they can tell their fellow jurors.

It exists because a jury can acquit for any reason or no reason. A juror cannot be compelled to explain his or her reason for acquittal.

However, if a juror stats he or she ignored the charge to the jury and acquitted based on disagreement with the law, then he or she could be prosecuted for violation of the juror oath.

If you ever exerciser the power of jury nullification just keep it to yourself. if asked why you voted for acquittal just say "none of your business" or "I didn't think the defendant was guilty."

[Military Man]

Jury nullification is a phenomena tolerated by our judicial system. Jurors can't be told about it by the court or the attorneys involved in the case, but if one or more jurors know about it they can tell their fellow jurors.

It exists because a jury can acquit for any reason or no reason. A juror cannot be compelled to explain his or her reason for acquittal.

However, if a juror stats he or she ignored the charge to the jury and acquitted based on disagreement with the law, then he or she could be prosecuted for violation of the juror oath.

If you ever exerciser the power of jury nullification just keep it to yourself. if asked why you voted for acquittal just say "none of your business" or "I didn't think the defendant was guilty."

Would have to do some research,but several federal appeals courts have ok'd jury nullification.
Have not heard of any juror being punished. To do so would undermine the jury system

[Austin]

A personal request from someone that has to deal with them after they are convicted:

Please dont do life-without-parole. Please.

Either they can be reformed or they cannot. We dont need to provide for them for the rest of their lives. Surgeries are expensive, so are medications.

[kudzu]

Remember when you are on a jury, you do not have to convict anyone of anything.
If you donot like the law or think things are unfair-DO NOT CONVICT

Nothing the Government, Judge or anyone else can do about it.

If everyone acted as you advise, our imperfect, but still the world's best, legal system would quickly devolve into utter chaos. It is true that a few would get a better result your way. Unfortunately NO ONE would be able to count on justice. What you propose is vigilante justice, a recipe for disaster. I hope you will reconsider your position and that no one will follow your advice.

[ronwill]

Some may want to read the following on jury nullification. It has been around for many, many years and is considered a power of the jury not necessarily a right.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links

Jury Nullification

[RonSC]

If everyone acted as you advise, our imperfect, but still the world's best, legal system would quickly devolve into utter chaos. It is true that a few would get a better result your way. Unfortunately NO ONE would be able to count on justice. What you propose is vigilante justice, a recipe for disaster. I hope you will reconsider your position and that no one will follow your advice.

I am in total agreement with the above poster. If we as jury members disregard the "rule of law" and/ or the judges admonishment in a particular case, we are JUST as guilty as those liberal activist judges who "legislate" from the bench. It is incumbent upon all jurors to vote based solely on the preponderance of evidence presented regardless personal feelings.

Ron