Fully Informed Jury bleg
So this is a legal bleg. I’m sure there’s well argued dissertations against the practice of fully-informed juries or that discuses opposition to the widespread practice of jury nullification, it’s just that I haven’t stumbled upon any of them yet.
So I’m asking. That’s what this post is about
This post originated on another thread, on another blog, and if you wish to read that, it’s right here. Everything below the line is my latest comment, posted over there.
–
zuzu Says:
That’s it, SM. You’ve convinced me that everything I’ve learned in three years of law school and ten years of federal litigation practice is wrong, wrong, wrong, and you’re right.
You are the man, so I must bow to your superior knowledge.
Aw, you’re so cute when you get all sassy!
Look, I’m serious here. I know some people are against jury nullification, but this is the first time I’ve actually discussed it with someone.
And honestly, I’m really learning something here. So, I actually already knew that there were reasons why evidence could be excluded from a trial (like fruit of the poison tree), but this is the first time I really understood that the defense needed to stick to a certain preapproved defense strategy. That really depreciates the phrase “had his/her day in court”, now doesn’t it?
On the issue of jury nullification, well I’ve got Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams on my side. Even though they are dead white guys who perpetuated the patriarchy, I’m still counting them as aces. Also, I’ve already read the stuff from groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association, and formed an opinion from it.
But that doesn’t mean there isn’t another side of the story, and that’s what I’m asking.
So somewhere out there there’s an honest argument where someone defends the practice of telling jurors that even if they think the law is being unfairly applied, they have to convict if the state proves it’s case. I’d really like to read that argument and let that opinion weigh in with what I’ve already read, but I’ve not found it yet.
All I’m asking for is a pointer, I can go fetch it myself. Surely with your vast legal education and experience, that request is a piece of cake.
Otherwise, I’ve just got to assume that a bunch of lawyers, and judges (who are almost always lawyers) and a bunch of politicians (who are usually lawyers too, oddly enough), are trying to pull a fast one over all of the rest of us.
SayUncle » For those of you who want to get your jury nullification argument on again Says :
[...] go here. [...]
2007-01-16 09:31 PermalinkMagus Says :
Though not what you asked for, here’s some pro jury nullification cites. I wonder if zuzu ever heard of them in his three years of law school and ten years of federal litigation practice?
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge…The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
John Adams, 1771
…..it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia,” 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision…..you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction…if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
2007-01-16 19:30 Permalinkstraightarrow Says :
zuzu said it. I agree. I don’t know zuzu, but the most brilliant legal minds in our history say the same thing he said. His three years of law school and ten years of practice didn’t teach him much.
2007-01-16 20:01 Permalink