Jurors Need to Know They Can Say No

I primarily practice commercial and consumer litigation which are disputes between business or individuals. There are always real concrete damages to be awarded (although I do have mental anguish damages in some cases). I would never voir dire a panel in the manner described by Deez because you poison the panel with those kinds of questions imo. I did try a personal injury case one time and the plaintiff's lawyer almost ran the panel with tort reform questions. It took the jury about thirty minutes to find in favor of my client in a case that I could have won if I were the plaintiff's attorney. Civil cases are very different from criminal cases in that it takes 10 jurors not 12 to get a verdict. A single juror can hang a criminal jury which is all you want if a criminal defendant.

I personally can answer the juror oath and nullify but I would never give this as legal advice because I think reasonable people could easily think otherwise.
 
Just say "God helped me reach the decision to nullify, as per the oath I took."

Sucks for Perham though, since he's an atheist.
smile.gif
 
The right to nullify is the law.

It does not take me some great mental gymnastics to incorporate this into my oath. You can follow "the law" and nullify because "the law" is not some divine infallible passage, but rather something written by a legislature composed of very flawed beings who were at least smart enough to defer to a jury of peers for an on the spot evaluation of whether the law and facts support some punishment. It all sort of works together in my mind.

I think some prosecutors see this very differently which is why I am unwilling to endorse this approach for anyone beyond myself.
 
I certainly agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I also agree that you have to bring it up in personal injury cases (of which I have only tried one that I can remember). The plaintiff's lawyer in my case did a very inartful job and it poisoned my opinion of how to address this issue. In my cases with mental anguish damages, I usually spend a little bit of time on it but it is not the primary issue. We also have a fairly pro-plaintiff juror pool compared to the most of Texas.
 
Are those the only sources of law in Texas or the United States? Does it help if I just tell you that we (Texas and the United States) are common law countries and states? What is the primary source of "the law" in a common law country.

Do you understand what this means?

(btw there are Rules of Civil Procedure in Texas, but the only civil code is the Civil Practices and Remedies Code neither of which are even remotely all inclusive)

The Link
 
There are some departures from the general principle of jury nullification in Texas civil law. However, it is couched in the context of a factual sufficiency review of the evidence.

For example, if a jury chooses to nullify a plaintiff's right to recover pain and suffering damages in the face of uncontroverted evidence of an objective injury, the trial court will likely grant a new trial, because the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See Cornelison v. Aggregate Haulers, Inc., 777 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1989, writ denied) (jury findings that automobile passenger injured in collision suffered zero dollars past physical impairment and pain were so against the great weight and preponderance of the uncontroverted evidence as to be manifestly unjust).
 
Nullification is typically found in criminal cases (in fact I think all the precedent are criminal cases) which is why they have a general rather than special verdict. A judge cannot direct a guilty verdict in a criminal case and an acquittal cannot be overturned on weight of the evidence grounds.
 
Okay, you want to direct the rest of us to the case law or statute which supports nullification?

You shouldn't require that degree of hand-holding. The basis for nullification is quite easy to find. If needed, I might be able to supply the Google search-string for you.

But what is your point? Is it to claim that JN is illegal? Not supported by law? What? This is an easy topic, well-known by anybody who has bothered to learn about this issue. It would behoove you to learn about it.

Or are you trying to play a (rather inartful, imo) game of gotcha? Inartful b/c you're asking for a statute.
 
Perham, if someone is going to make a broad, bold statement such as, "Jury nullification is the law," they should at least be able to back it up by being able to cite a statute or case to back up such an assertion. And an opinion piece from the author of "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice" probably won't be sufficient in most courts.

Mr. Dees, I read the case linked and it discusses the history of jury nullification, but would not be considered case law in support of it.
 
johnnyhorn, is this the first time you've heard of or looked into JN? Not only is your conclusion faulty but so in your reasoning: that jury nullification is not supported the law, and because you can't find a statute/case law on a message board you are correct.

It is without question an established fact that jurors have the power to nullify.

For a search string, try "colorado nullification appeal" in advance google.

You seem to be trying to foce a round peg into a square hole here.
 
Of course, why didn't I think of entering "Colorado nullification appeal" in a google search. Also, you may want to read the first sentence of the fourth paragraph.

Look, if you want to say that juries should nullify criminal drug cases because you are against the war on drugs, knock yourself out. And if you think juries should have the right to commit jury nullification for any reason at all, that's fine, too. But to say, "Jury nullification is the law," is altogether different and and completely wrong. You should be able to understand the difference.
 
But to say, "Jury nullification is the law," is altogether different and and completely wrong.

Wrong. It is the law. But are you being Clintonian in your use of "is"?
 
Perham, now you are just being obtuse. Look, if it is the law, please let us know where in the statutes, codes, case law, common law, uncommon law, wherever to back up your statement. It is not that difficult a concept. If you are so certain, it should not be hard to find.
 
You're caught in a circle, chasing your tail now.

I have no desire to follow you in your second, if not third, trip.

You have understood very little, if anything, in the prior posts. I try to elucidate things, impart some knowledge, hint at a bit more, help you with your internet searches, but I cannot make you drink at my font of knowledge. You have to both want to do that, and be capable of doing that.

JN is an interesting topic, even a Rorschach test in some circumstances. You see what you want to see.
 
It's a simple concept, really. Someone says something is the law, you follow it up by asking for the legal authority, and they respond with a statute, case, constitutional provision, whatever. Then you may discuss and argue as to the interpretation of the statute, etc. This is the first time I have ever heard someone follow up a request for legal authority with references to google searches (which don't back up their arguments, anyway) and saying that I am fortunate to drink from the font of their knowledge. I feel like I am arguing with Ignatius Reilly.
 
johnnyhorn, aren't you getting dizzy by now chasing your tail?

You, like many here, must be carefully spoon-fed your answers for you to understand them. Does no one think on their own anymore? It's like the mental apparatus of most Americans has been devolved into a PowerPoint presentation. If you don't include bullet points they simply cannot follow.

To be honest, I must apologize for my role in this. It is clear you don't understand the topic and yet I insist on toying with you. But, to paraphrase Emerson, error is the essence of being human, and I am enthralled with the robustness of your humanity.

Try this: John Jay (please first look up who he is so you understand the import of his comments); John Peter Zenger; Georgia v. Brailsford, John Adams (as mentioned above by the esteemed Paso); Thomas Jefferson; Laura Kriho's appeal (which I've already pretty much spoon-fed you).

You still, and probably alwasy will be, fixated on finding an explicit statute that sanctions jury nullification. This is a red flag showing you don't really grasp the topic.

You are not arguing with me anymore than a gnat argues with an elephant. You need to understand the issue and have a rudimentary understanding of the history/background before an argument can commence. As I've said, you're trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The square peg is your limited knowledge of the topic; the round hole is reality.
 
Pasotex, I appreciate the clarification as to what you meant by saying that juror nullification is the law. I agree with much of what you are saying, although I would probably describe it as being more of a legal reality, as opposed to saying that it is the law.

I disagree that it is a good thing, though. The case you linked has a good quote (and it is difficult cutting and pasting from an iPhone) as to how jury nullification opens up the trial process to the arbitrary prejudices of individual jurors. Although it may be noble in such situations as when a juror may be wanting to limit government overreach, like possibly the war on drugs, it may also be used to deprive defendants of a fair trial, such as due to racial or other prejudices.
 
There is no question in my mind that juror nullification was a bad thing during the civil rights era in the south. It has an interesting history in the common law particularly in the colonies.
 
Bottom line for me from this discussion: Right or wrong, some folks that show up for jury duty are into nullification, and if I ever end up in court my lawyer needs to factor that into his advice and decisions.
 
It is not an entirely unreasonable argument to make that the prosecutor should not be trusted. A recent news item about a Dallas man kept in prison for over 30 years because the Dallas DA (or a Dallas DA) withheld evidence should make the public, and jurors, question everything the prosecution does.

But if the dog doesn't bark how do you know it's there? There have been so many overzealous, dishonest, lying prosecutors making the news lately that one has to wonder if the entire prsecutorial system is corrupt.
 
Good post, Mr. Deez.

I have two comments:

1) I said the prosecutorial system, not the entire system. Maybe you meant just the prosecutor aspect of the system in your response.

2) The process to discipline prosectors may be essentially non-existent in some areas, worthless in others, in name only elsewhere.... The "system" to discipline corrupt prosecutors is completely broken for all intents and purposes. Ken Anderson anyone? A system doesn't work even if it punishes a prosecutor if the defendant has spent decades wrongfully imprisoned.

So don't try to sell me that bill of goods. Other than that, good talk, Rusty.

But, as a prospective jurorI will not trust prosecutors and will examine everything they say and do with a fine-toothed comb. If I find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, anything out of order, I will assume the prosecutor is hiding something and base my judgment accordingly.
 
What would they come after you for?

Criminal contempt of court, if that's what you mean.

The real answer is because they are whiny and vindictive.
 
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