Jury Nullification - Did you know?
 

I was prompted by this article: Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust - 12.160Mhz ... Resisting the New World Order to think a bit more about the ins and outs of jury nullification. The article relates to jury nullification in a case of marijuana possession by a Vietnam veteran, Loren Swift. As part of his defense the argued that Mr. Swift used marijuana as a means of dealing with chronic body pain and PTSD. Rather than acquitting Mr. Swift on his charges, the jury chose to find that the law was unjust.

As I understand it, jury nullification only applies to criminal cases, not civil. But it is within the rights and obligation of the jury to decide not just on the facts of the case, but on the law behind the case. So cases where the RIAA is suing in civil court for damages from file sharing wouldn't be subject to jury nullification. However, if the suit was criminal pursuant to copyright infringement law, the law could be nullified for that case. Would that weaken a civil outcome? I don't know.

My questions for my fellow TFPers:
1. Did you already know about jury nullification? One of the points that the article makes is that many people don't know about jury nullification as judges and prosecutors don't want to make juries aware of the process.
2. What, if any, laws do you consider unjust, or unjustly applied, to the point where you would consider jury nullification?

I feel that there are a number of laws right now that are simply not in the best interest of the people of this country. Prostitution and drug possession are two that spring to mind as being over-prosecuted and not worth the time and money that are spent on them. Why ruin someone's life and overcrowd a prison because they wanted to get a $50 blowjob or get high on the weekend? Yes, I realize that a lot of these crimes get plead down without going to trial. But maybe more people would go to trial if they knew that juries just weren't going to stand for these kind of cases being prosecuted. Am I being naive? Let me know.

Yeah, I knew about it and talked about it when I went in for jury duty. That and wearing a tie featuring a smiling man catching a trout probably kept me off the jury.

How am I to enforce an unjust law? The case was for some guy with drugs in his car. My city has an alarming homicide rate, and the system is tied up on the war on drugs. Sorry, I must dissent.

The aspect of putting power directly back into the hands of the governed is really interesting.

I made a blog post the other day about my jury experience

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/blogs/g...3-tainted.html

it pretty much sums up how I feel about the system.

If you even hint that you know about it they will make sure you aren't on the jury.

guccilvr, I read your blog post on jury duty. And, as kutulu and other posters bring up, those that want to avoid jury duty or are aware of laws and rights of private citizens are almost sure not to serve on a jury. One of the surest ways to avoid jury duty is to admit to having a cop or lawyer in your family. Automatic pass - you know too much about how the system works, we don't want you. And yes, you end up with a jury made, not of your peers, but of the chronically unemployed, the lonely elderly, etc.

I used to feel like some of you have opined, that jury duty is the very last thing that you want to be stuck doing. Now I'm starting to feel like it is last hope for a people in a supposedly free society to make their will known. Many of the laws enacted today are not in the public's interest, but favor select subsets of the population; ultra-rich get to write the tax code, industrial corporations author laws on clean air and water conservation, religious groups write laws granting them presumptive immunity from all law and favorable land use treatment. I think that if called to serve on a jury today, I'd do my duty willingly. On the off chance that the law was unjust, then I would work with the jury to nullify the law for that case.

The problem is that is trying to get on a jury to begin with. While this country has lost it's ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" we also have to make sure that we don't assume innocence for the mere cause of trying to overthrow a system riddled with holes.

just like at the end of my blog post, I don't know that I'd want the awesome responsibility of deciding a man's fate.. whether it be his freedom or his life.

I think if more people would understand the scope of that responsibility, there would be more dutiful jurors rather than the, lets get out of here as fast as we can jurors.

I definetly know about jury nullification and will not hesitate to play stupid about it to get on the jury. There are too many bad laws and we need more people who know about jury nullification to sit on the jury.

Drug laws, many traffic laws, and any instance where I felt the police or the system did not follow the proper procedure would get a 'not guilty' vote by me. Regardless if whether or not I felt the defendant was guilty or not.

1. Did you already know about jury nullification?

I do.

2. What, if any, laws do you consider unjust, or unjustly applied, to the point where you would consider jury nullification?

gun laws, drug laws based on the CSA, and any tax laws that apply to the exercise of constitutional rights.

this does just as much damage as the current system. If a person cannot think objectively and come to a guilty conclusion because they are so wrapped up in this notion of being a hero in a revolution against the machine, then we become the machine in all manners of being. We are no better than what we are fighting against.

try explaining this better please. I'm having trouble reconciling your issue with the prosecuting speech to potential jury members and your belief that we must follow what that prosecutor really says.

It was in reference to the statement I quoted. If a person simply wants to get on a jury and give a non-guilty verdict for the sake of going against the law, it does nothing for the cause. While a prosecutor may use wrongful means of getting that person into the trial, it can't supersede the actual causes of whether the person is guilty or not.

I'm not advocating that the laws should be abused, but in the effort to make sure they do their job truthfully and accurately, the same standard should be held to those who are on a jury.

just saying 'not guilty' because "don't like the law" makes a greater mockery of the system and the people than it already is.

just saying 'not guilty or guilty' because of a speech I heard in the jury pool room would be the same thing. IF we are actively discussing how inappropriate the system can be..what good does it do anyone to use the same tactics to get our point across?

Again, the justice system is all sorts of fucked up.. all I'm saying is that people need to be smart and not just enter a verdict just because they hate the system..

A jury member must judge not only the facts of the case, but the law itself. If they feel the law is unconstitutional or being misapplied, a not guilty is perfectly within their power. I would agree that just to call not guilty because of dislike of the system, that would be wrong.