[HN Gopher] A Juror's Guide to Going Rogue
___________________________________________________________________
A Juror's Guide to Going Rogue
Author : welpandthen
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-06-18 23:49 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk)
| underseacables wrote:
| I've heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification,
| with mini saying it's illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a
| juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the
| law is wrong, or the cause is just?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has
| final say. If the jury returns "not guilty", that's the end of
| it.
| tzs wrote:
| Generally correct in criminal cases, due to the law against
| double jeopardy.
|
| There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply
| if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If,
| for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a
| juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then
| that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy.
| The State could try you again for the same crime (and also
| try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the
| jury at the first trial).
|
| Note that although a jury does _not_ have the final say in
| the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule
| a jury 's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a
| higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases
| because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their
| verdict.
|
| Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw
| Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the
| same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that
| saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of
| Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution
| witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which
| individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which
| is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the
| judge and any judges in future appeals).
|
| If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular
| crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes
| and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty
| verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that
| from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the
| reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the
| prosecution ones were telling the truth.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _with mini saying it's illegal_
|
| In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury.
| It's also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in
| an indirect way.
|
| As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It's a bad
| mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects
| nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.
| aix1 wrote:
| > Is it illegal for a juror...
|
| I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no?
| (Your question doesn't mention one.)
| underseacables wrote:
| For simplicity sake, let's use federal court.
| nickcox wrote:
| I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?
| joefife wrote:
| Why?
|
| The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.
| coyotespike wrote:
| No, passing a law against jurors advocating for jury
| nullification would probably be unconstitutional on First
| Amendment grounds.
|
| In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against
| penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking
| bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania
| William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason.
|
| As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What
| does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury
| nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to
| inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much.
|
| Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you
| weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal
| organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.
| phnofive wrote:
| A prosecutor's guide to winning in voir dire:
|
| https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_M...
| epicureanideal wrote:
| I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were
| randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don't seem
| to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers
| with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the
| general population.
| mnrode wrote:
| AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution,
| are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want
| to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of
| police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors
| in. Both sides keep each other in check.
|
| A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For
| example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big
| issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want
| someone in the jury that is openly racist.
| stickfigure wrote:
| You're right, but in fact the judge can put their finger on
| one side of the scales. I was in voir dire for an obvious
| drug prosecution and before selection began, the judge
| eliminated anyone who thought the laws should be changed.
| That was in the late 90s in a (US) federal court.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Very interesting read, thanks! Lots of weaponised logical
| fallacies.
| steve76 wrote:
| Thief. Crook. Liar. Coward. Murderer. Traitor. Why should anyone
| listen to leadership anymore? Just to get berated all their
| lives, and then watch the people they worked so hard cuck out to
| drunken junkies. Why work hard for whatever they are selling when
| a lawless mob is going to burn it all down while they applaud.
| Die die die die die.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-20 23:01 UTC)