Jurors Need to Know They Can Say No

P

Perham1

2,500+ Posts
IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.

The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.


Link
 
FWIW, in most courts, doing this would be committing perjury, since you have to swear that you will uphold the law as is. If you swear that you will, but then don't, you've lied...
 
You are incorrect. Jury nullification is perfectly "legal" and is upholding the law. A jury is entitled to acquit someone even if they are guilty. It is probably the only way the inane war on drugs can ever end.
 
^^ It seems that people who will not uphold the law would be discovered during jury selection. What are the ramifications if a prospective jurist gives false or misleading statements during jury selection?
 
If someone is charged with an offense that violates the constitution, and there are many such laws, then jury nullification is totally justified and warranted. I could care less if people want to smoke pot, it's a plant that occurs in nature and gov has no authority tell anyone they can't grow it or use it however they wish to. I am a cancer survivor and I will never again have any FDA / AMA approved Big Pharma cancer treatments.The Link
 
THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVICE AND IF YOU WANT LEGAL ADVICE HIRE A LAWYER AND PAY HIM FOR HIS SERVICES. THIS IS A PURELY PERSONAL OPINION AND IN NO WAY ENDORSES THIS BEHAVIOR FOR ANYONE BEYOND ME.

The right to nullify the law is as old as the jury system itself. Juries are the ultimate arbiter of the facts, but also the law even though many judges and lawyers don't like this and they are not allowed to tell jurors this for fear of what the jury might do. In a criminal case, the jury is entitled to acquit the defendant for no reason at all.

In voir dire, you are required to tell the truth about your opinions and one thing the panel is typically asked is whether you can put personal feelings aside and follow the law. Nullification or the right to nullify is the "law" and you can legitimately answer this general question yes even if it is your intent or possible intent to nullify. If you are asked specifically about a specific law like say possession of marijuana for personal use, I cannot tell you how to answer.

I personally think the war on drugs is so utterly dishonest and wasteful that nullification is almost a moral imperative. You might get in trouble though so consult and pay a lawyer before deciding how to answer this question. I honestly do not know how I would answer this specific question because I have a duty to the court system well beyond that of a potential juror and I could get disbarred for dishonestly answering a voir dire question.
 
...and one thing the panel is typically asked is whether you can put personal feelings aside and follow the law.

"Can" I put aside personal feelings and follow the law? Why yes, I am physically capable of doing that. "Will" I do that? That is another question entirely. As long as one is physically capable of putting aside personal feelings and following the law then one can honestly answer "Yes, I can".

I don't know if I am for legalization of pot or just some sort of decriminalization. Therefore, I can honestly answer "no" if asked if I favor the legalization of pot, yet I can still hold a view that would lead me to nullify a pot case.

The truth about my opinions, ala Montaigne, is that I do not have complete and final views of my opinions. It is entirely possible that my opinion may be changed by the very case I am hearing as a juror.

But it does sound like an awful lot of you would have convicted Rosa Parks.
 
They may ask "will you put them aside". I truthfully do not pay that close of attention even though I have been on 2 juries and probably picked 25-30 of them over the course of the last 22 years. My cases are all civil (although the 2 juries that I have been on were both criminal) and civil cases are somewhat simpler even though there is almost always a lot more money at stake.

There is no doubt that you can split hairs and get on a jury with a vague notion that you might nullify. As the linked article indicates (and a little google research I did confirmed), do not be shocked if the prosecutors come after you because they are vindictive little *******.
 
FWIW, in most courts, doing this would be committing perjury, since you have to swear that you will uphold the law as is. If you swear that you will, but then don't, you've lied...


No.
 
By the way, the prosecutor's duty in a case is not to win the case and get a conviction. It is to do justice. This does not mean a conviction and all too often prosecutors forget that their duty is very different from the duty of the defense lawyer. Nullification can be the ultimate form of justice (although in some KKK cases in the south it was quite the opposite).
 
They may ask "will you put them aside".

Hmm, there just seem to be so many things wrong with that question. How could one be able to predict the future; i.e., how could one know beforehand the details of the case and be able to honestly answer "yes", they would be able to put their opinions aside and follow the law, no matter how unjust or egregious the law is or the application of the law?

The only honest answer to the "will you put themj aside" question is "At this time, I don't know; I need to hear the details of the case in order to answer that."

And, on to a bigger question, if the "will" question is asked, and only those jurors who answer "yes" are empaneled, then the jury's use has been somewhat curtailed. All the court then wants out of a jury is a rubber stamp, especially when it comes to pot posession cases and assigning criminal blame.
 
Isn't a jury a far purer form of democracy than the prosecutor? I think jury nullification is the ultimate voice of the community (for good or bad).
 
it's a plant that occurs in nature and gov has no authority tell anyone they can't grow it or use it however they wish to.

As are poppies, which is the source of heroin. Are you likewise saying that the government has no authority to limit the growth of poppies and the use of its byproducts?

I think the govt's views on pot are abjectly stupid (Fed govt) but I wouldn't base my argument on the fact that pot is a plant that occurs in nature.
 
When a lawyer is asked a legal question and he answers with opinion, everyone should be able to recognize the folly.

Strange.

What if he answers with a legal opinion? Have you ever heard the phrase "practice law"? What do you think "practice" means in that context. What do you think "legal opinion" means?

Or do you think that all law is akin to a very plain statute, ignoring the whole concept of common law and conflicting authority?

A lawyer quite frequently answers a legal question with his opinion. It's always been that way. And no, it's not folly.
 
Law school teaches or enhances your ability to categorize. Issues can be ones of fact, law or mixed. I am not even sure what you mean by the word "opinion" on this issue because the issue is a mixed one of fact and law so there is no definitive right or wrong answer and pretty much any answer is going to be what I consider opinion. Most of my undergraduate education was in hard science and the law is anything but hard science. It is also practiced by very flawed beings at every level. I think it works overall, but there are plenty of problems with it.

There are judges and prosecutors who would relentlessly prosecute or persecute folks who attempted to nullify. I personally think they are wrong echoing the opinion of John Adams, but I am not going to tell people on a public forum to follow their conscience if this might earn them a trip to jail depending on the judge and prosecutor. I think the majority of prosecutors and judges would find nullification to be a right enjoyed by juries, but this almost never comes up in civil cases.

It takes some serious huevos to nullify just as it took some serious huevos to rebel against England. As with many interesting legal issues, the contours of how to actually nullify a verdict have never been fully explored particularly by the Supreme Court.
 
Then, you finished with how to answer an attorney's question regarding pot trial jury selection without getting caught.

I must have missed that part of pasotex's response. Can you please cite the relevant passage?

To be fair, I think you have greatly mistated what paso said. I think you also do not understand the law.
 
"If you are asked specifically about a specific law like say possession of marijuana for personal use, I cannot tell you how to answer."
 
This is perhaps a topic for a different thread, but any completely honest person would have to refuse to take the Texas' juror's oath....
 
Why is it a topic for a different thread or why would any honest person have to refuse to take the oath?
smile.gif
 
Ok, enough chain-yanking.

Here is my argument for why any honest person must refuse to take the juror's oath.

The oath requires one to follow the law as given to them by the court. Any person, imo anyway, will have thought about the topic of fairness, justice, etc., and thought about what they would do if either the law or application thereof would cause a gross violation of their conscience.

You may think pot laws are ok, but balk at sentencing a guy to 20 years, or life, in prison for possession of a joint. It's happened in Arizona, you know (the sentencing).

Or there may be another law which you profoundly, and with justification, disagree with. Let's use the Rosa Parks law, for example. Would you have convicted Rosa for sitting in the front of the bus? Well, that's what the law called for, right, and if one were to follow the law then one would have to convict.

So... taking the oath would require one to find Rosa guilty. Taking the oath would require one to follow the law even when doing so would shock their conscience. My point is that if one is being honest (and aware) with onself, this consideration would have to be acknowledged, thus putting a person in the uncomfortable position of "oathing" away their ability to act according to their conscience. I'm not necessarily talking a minor pang of conscience, but a very major pang. The oath has tied you to doing what the court has told you (in terms of the law).

An honest person would have to say: wait a minute; I don't know how this case will turn out or if things are so screwed up that I may really not agree with the law or its application, and as such, I can't take an oath that would require me to ignore my conscience/follow the court no matter what.
 
Here is the oath:

"You and each of you do solemnly swear that in the case of the State of Texas against the defendant, you will a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, so help you God".
 
It's a tough one. A jury can nullify. However, Perham is right. If you take the oath, I don't see how you can nullify without violating the oath.

Notwithstanding the oath, if a prosecutor is doing his job, it's going to be very tough to exercise the right to nullify without committing perjury during the voir dire (jury "selection) process.

I never tried criminal cases, but when I tried personal injury cases, my goal was to keep people off the jury who would not award money to my client because of their views on the civil justice system (meaning people who have been poisoned by the insurance industry), even if the evidence supported awarding my client money.

I didn't just ask "will you follow the law" type of questions. Very few will answer those in the negative. Instead, I asked questions that would have made not giving me information or giving false information very difficult without committing perjury. I asked very detailed questions about their ability to award pain and suffering damages, attorney advertising, their ability to award medical expenses for the type of care my client sought (especially if it was osteopathic, chiropractic, etc.), what they thought of personal injury lawyers, their ability to hold me only to my burden of proof, and a whole host of other questions. I asked questions that were designed to get even the most timid of tort reformers talking. Obviously, time didn't permit me to do that with everybody individually, but I'd hit about the first 20 on the panel very hard. Once I moved to strike the juror from the panel, I'd question them again only in the presence of the judge and defense counsel. I'm not going to regurgitate my whole voir dire here, but by the time the judge was going to rule on my motion, that juror was going to have to lie if he was going to nullify.

Are prosecutors as thorough? I don't know. They have the easiest job of any trial lawyer because of how heavily stacked the deck is in their favor and how strong most jurors predisposition is to convict. Most prospective jurors think they're heroes and are predisposed to convict unless the defendant can prove his innocence. Most of what I've heard about specific criminal trials is that prosecutors are pretty sloppy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top