confused about meaning of this

[bluntz]

If your case does go to trial, then try like hell to get that jury informed about their inherent right to judge the law itself, and to nullify it by letting you go, if they think it's not fair or is totally ridiculous (like forcing you to go to prison for a year for having 1.5 ounces of pot, or some equally obnoxious law).

it says "their inherent right to judge the law itself" im a little confused about this. does that mean that if I am on a jury trying to convict someone of drug charges that I could argue not guilty even though I believed that he was guilty of the crime if I disagreed with the law stating that possession of that certain drug was illegal? like for example someone on trial for possession of cocaine could I argue not guilty because I felt that cocaine should be legal? I know I could keep it under wraps and just argue not guilty and say I believe he wasn't guilty, but im more curious about the actual legality of that. or is it more along the line of me having the right to judge whether or not the punishment is appropriate for the crime?

Reputation Comments on this post:

damn good question

[Creeping Death]

Thats a tough one man. Maybe you should call a goverment guy and ask.

[Alfa]

Any lawyers in the house?

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by bluntz

If your case does go to trial, then try like hell to get that jury informed about their inherent right to judge the law itself, and to nullify it by letting you go, if they think it's not fair or is totally ridiculous (like forcing you to go to prison for a year for having 1.5 ounces of pot, or some equally obnoxious law).

What is the source of this quote?

[Solidly-here]

Jury nullification.

This is an old, and somewhat-respected practice. When a law (like Slavery, in the 19th century) is legal, but unseemly, a jury of one's peers can decide the case based upon their own perspective of what is right and wrong.

In the 1980s, juries began to feel compassion for Battered Wives, many of whom were acquitted of killing their abusive husbands.

In the 21st century, this is best shown (at least on a drug forum) by juries who vote acquittal for Medical Marijuana patients. In one California county, the DA won't try a Med Pot case, even if the guy has pounds of it (or, an expired Doctor's recommendation), because jury-after-jury has nullified many cases he brought to trial.

The trial occurs. At the end, the Judge reads the BAJI law (Jury Instructions). He says: "The law says ____. If you think that this defendant has broken this law (as I have just read it to you), then you will convict him of the crime."

Then the 12 people go into the Jury Room to debate the future of the defendant. There is a half-way measure a jury can also do. That is, convict on a lesser crime (for instance, Theft, instead of Robbery).

If, however, at least one juror decides that (for whatever reason) it is not fair to convict this man of the crime he is charged with, he votes "NOT Guilty." If he stands alone, then it is a Mistrial (a Hung Jury). Then, later the District Attorney can re-charge the crime (if he wishes to), and get another trial to attempt to convict. Many Hung Jury cases are NOT re-tried.

If this one juror can convince the other 11 peers of the injustice of convicting the defendant, then the jury returns to Court, and reads their verdict: "Not Guilty." The judge releases the defendant, and that's it.

The jury does NOT need to say that they "nullified" the crime. They just give their verdict. No matter how they came to their verdict (unless they were bribed or something), it is a legal verdict, and the defendant goes free.

Reputation Comments on this post:

some good info on law practise

[motorhead]

Here is a current example. It is regarding the Grant Krieger case here in Canada. The jury returned a not guilty verdict in his marijuana trafficking charge because they felt that he was not a criminal. Krieger needs marijuana for medical reasons. However in this case the court rejected the not-guilty verdict and ordered them to return guilty verdict. http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4626.html

[Solidly-here]

I am glad I live in the USA (instead of Canada). Here, the Judge has NO such power; the Jury's verdict stands.

[bluntz]

wtf the court rejected the verdict and ordered them to return with a guilty verdict? that's rediculous.... whats the point of a jury if they can just be forced to change their verdict?

[pjbth]

As i understand it. THe judge ALWAYS has the right to right to refuse the jury's verdict in Canada and the USA. Thats why you always see the jury foreman hand the judge the verdict to read before it before it is read aloud. It is very uncommon for a judge to refuse a jury's verdict and the jury has the right to refuse to consent with the judges order in which case a new trial would take place.

[Nagognog2]

A Judge in the USA can overturn a guilty verdict from a jury. But cannot overturn a not guilty verdict.

[elbow]

Jury nullification is still a right that Americans do have, although very few of them are aware of it, and it's history is extremely interesting.

Nullification was firmly supported by the founding fathers, such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and it was frequently used as a tool for abolitionists to free slaves who were being tried in Northern states. Although it was illegal for a slave to run away, a sympathetic jury would declare the law unjust and thus he or she would be freed.

Beginning in the late 19th century, the judge no longer had any legal obligation to inform a jury of its right to nullification, and today a judge often will remind the jury that they are judging the guilt or innocence of the defendant--not excercising any personal opinion, moral belief or presuming to judge the justice of the law itself.

Most alarmingly, it has now become a controversial practice to inform fellow jurors of their right to nullification and members of juries have gone so far as to "tattle" on fellow jurors that they felt were being troublesome by insisting on their right to nullify a law. I even remember hearing about a case several years ago in which a woman sitting on a jury was actually arrested for "contempt of court" because she was giving pamphlets on jury nullification to her fellow jurors.

So insisting on your right to jury nullification can get you in some trouble in some situations, but it can also get you out of jury duty-just mention those two words and you will never have to sit on a jury again.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post, nuff said

[Solidly-here]

I sent this Post through twice. Read the next one (until a Mod deletes THIS one).

[Solidly-here]

Elbow amplified on what I said about Jury Nullification. Certainly many 1000s of former Slaves found Freedom in the North.

But then he went on to cast some doubt on the day-to-day practice of Jury Nullification. So, I will address the last half of his Post: "Most alarmingly, it has now become a controversial practice to inform fellow jurors of their right to nullification and members of juries have gone so far as to 'tattle' on fellow jurors that they felt were being troublesome by insisting on their right to nullify a law."

While this a True statement, I will elaborate. There are many people (who know about Jury Nullification), and several of these guys go down to the Courthouse and pass-out little Brochures about the legality of the process. I know one man who attends most of the Marijuana trials. He will sit-in on the Jury Selection, and when the 12 members are picked, he will hand each of the Jurors a copy of his Brochure, and answer any questions they have about the practice.

This has been going on all over the United States for at least 30 years in a Big way. Most of the time, Jurors aren't interested in it, but some Jurors are. And in several Big-time trials, the Jury has returned "Not Guilty" verdicts, and afterwards have claimed to have Nullified the "crime" (especially in those cases where the Police were heavy-handed, and over-anxious).

Then elbow goes on to suggest that you can get arrested (and go to trial) for speaking about Jury Nullification. This is really not true. He says: "I even remember hearing about a case several years ago in which a woman sitting on a jury was actually arrested for 'contempt of court' because she was giving pamphlets on jury nullification to her fellow jurors."

If this is the Case I think it is, the lady was arguing with her fellow Jurors about Jury Nullification, and was trying to give everyone a Brochure. Several Jurors said they didn't want to take one, but she insisted, and made a scene. She grabbed one of the other women, and screamed at her. The Judge called the Jury back (and took testimony from witness Jurors). She apologized to the Judge (and the other Juror). He ordered the woman off of the Jury (replaced her with a man), and gave her 24 hours of jail-time for Battery on a Juror. The District Attorney did not press charges, and the woman (hopefully) learned her lesson about the Right of anyone to Refuse to take a Jury Nullification Brochure.

The end is certainly True (if you tell the District Attorney the right thing): "It can also get you out of jury duty -- just mention those two words and you will never have to sit on a jury again."

If, while you are being Voir Dired (being asked about your qualifications as a Juror) you state that you believe in Jury Nullification for the particular "crime" that is being charged, the District Attorney will have "cause" to disqualify you from sitting on that Jury. One of the General questions is: "Do you feel that if this man is proved guilty of the crime he is charged with, that you could find him Guilty?" If you answer "NO" then you are not "competent" to sit as a Juror. A Juror has to ready to vote for BOTH "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"; if you are sure that you couldn't convict him, then it is not a "Fair Trial" (for the District Attorney).

This is why people hand-out the Jury Nullification Brochures after the Jury is picked (voir dired). At this point, there is nothing the DA can do about it. And, nothing really happens until the several days of Trial are concluded.