Jury Duty question.

[arakboss]

Imagine you were on a jury for a case where you believe the defendant was guilty of violating a law that you felt was unconstitutional.

Would you have voted not guilty or would you accept that your duty on the jury was only to decide whether a defendant was guilty of violating the law, no matter how unconstitutional you felt the law was?

Read More

 

[gryghin]

That's the problem with critical thinking and freedom of choice... or is it really a blessing.

 

[Alexx1401]

Called Jury Nullification. What would I do? Yes if I felt the person did not deserve to be convicted I would not vote to convict. I would try to be reasonable with the rest of the panel but, if I really felt that the person did not deserve a conviction? I would refuse to convict.

 

[TTSX]

Did it, kind of. Long story short, trial was for attempted murder with a deadly weapon, no evidence of a weapon of any kind was found, charges reduced to assault with a deadly weapon (or similar, been a few years) but I refused to vote guilty because..... NO DEADLY WEAPON. Well, in Oregon a unanimous jury apparently isn't needed for most things so it was a moot point. Dude was found guilty and all the blood thirsty housewives and retired folk on the jury with me got to go home early.

 

[rfmjchp]

At least in California, judges have a set of instructions they charge the jury with when they start deliberations. The list of instructions varies depending on the crime and other actors. One of the charges is that jury decisions have to be based on what information and evidence was admitted in to the record of the trial.
Now this matter would be heard in a trial court. Within each county superior court , in addition to trial courts, there is an appellant division. That would be when a constitutional issue would be brought before. Now a bad story about a criminal trial, murder of 2 CHP officers, where a juror went rogue.

Male and female suspects taken into custody 3-4 days after the killing. Female cuts a deal, testifies for the state, deal got her medium length sentence in state prison. Towards the end of the trial, one juror had questions about the suspects timeline. So, on his own, he decided to take a drive during a weekend and duplicate were the suspects said they drove to, how long it took, etc. Quite an extensive drive. When they got into deliberations a couple of weeks later, he told all the other jurors what he had found out - suspects time line was way out of wack. Foreman passed a note through the bailiff to the judge. Judge declared a mistrial. At the second trial, the county DA had had a couple of his investigators duplicate the suspects route and timeline.

 

[TTSX]

At least in California, judges have a set of instructions they charge the jury with when they start deliberations. The list of instructions varies depending on the crime and other actors. One of the charges is that jury decisions have to be based on what information and evidence was admitted in to the record of the trial.
Now this matter would be heard in a trial court. Within each county superior court , in addition to trial courts, there is an appellant division. That would be when a constitutional issue would be brought before. Now a bad story about a criminal trial, murder of 2 CHP officers, where a juror went rogue.

Male and female suspects taken into custody 3-4 days after the killing. Female cuts a deal, testifies for the state, deal got her medium length sentence in state prison. Towards the end of the trial, one juror had questions about the suspects timeline. So, on his own, he decided to take a drive during a weekend and duplicate were the suspects said they drove to, how long it took, etc. Quite an extensive drive. When they got into deliberations a couple of weeks later, he told all the other jurors what he had found out - suspects time line was way out of wack. Foreman passed a note through the bailiff to the judge. Judge declared a mistrial. At the second trial, the county DA had had a couple of his investigators duplicate the suspects route and timeline.

Sounds like the state didn't like their story being second guessed

 

[rfmjchp]

Actually the County DA didn't mind. They had talked about it, but initially didn't see the value. But they did do the route/timing for the second trial.

 

[L84Cabo]

I could not convict a person if I believed the law was unconstitutional to begin with...and there are a lot of those. A whole lot of the gun laws for example.

 

[arakboss]

I could not convict a person if I believed the law was unconstitutional to begin with...and there are a lot of those. A whole lot of the gun laws for example.

That's were my thoughts were going.

 

[OldBroad44]

If I thought the defendant was guilty of breaking a law that was unconstitutional, I would vote not guilty based upon the principle of jury nullification. Judges and courts discourage use of jury nullification, and judges sometimes issue instructions that suggest it isn't valid. But it is. A jury may find a defendant not guilty for any reason they want, including that they don't agree with the law, and when they do find a defendant not guilty by jury nullification, their decision may not be overturned. Furthermore, I'm capable of infinite stubbornness when I'm convinced I'm right.

Good news on non-unanymous juries: On April 21 2020, in Ramos vs Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that conviction of serious crimes by non-unanymous juries violates the sixth amendment right to trial by jury. This ruling overturned the law in Oregon, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico on that issue. Oregon law had allowed conviction by up to 10:2 juries on serious crimes except murder.

 

[revjen45]

The judge can't tell you how to vote. You can refuse to convict if you aren't convinced, and you don't have to say it's jury nullification. Maybe you don't have much confidence in the veracity of a Soros-Democrat persecuting shyster.

 

[Alexx1401]

The judge can't tell you how to vote. You can refuse to convict if you aren't convinced, and you don't have to say it's jury nullification. Maybe you don't have much confidence in the veracity of a Soros-Democrat persecuting shyster.

YEP! I have "heard" of black robes removing a member of a jury if the others told the judge the one was refusing to cooperate with debate. So if it was me I would not just sit there and say no. I would try to be reasonable and hope maybe I could sway a couple more. In any case even if the black robe removed me for an alternate I could walk away thinking I tried. Keep thinking one day it may be me hoping at least one person will do the "right thing" for me

 

[patbob]

Imagine you were on a jury for a case where you believe the defendant was guilty of violating a law that you felt was unconstitutional.

Would you have voted not guilty or would you accept that your duty on the jury was only to decide whether a defendant was guilty of violating the law, no matter how unconstitutional you felt the law was?

Vote not to convict. This is why, for example, you're not going to get thrown in jail in Michigan for blasphemy, even though the law is still on the books, because no jury would convict you -- the jury will override the law with society's point of view on the matter.

In practice, it will never matter. If you truly believe that the law is unconstitutional, make sure to speak up about that during jury selection, because it means you are guaranteed not to be impartial in judging the case. If the lawyers and judge leave you on the jury anyway, then that means they want your bias represented. Vote accordingly.

 

[OldBroad44]

...If you truly believe that the law is unconstitutional, make sure to speak up about that during jury selection, because it means you are guaranteed not to be impartial in judging the case.

Not at all. Some laws are legitimate, effective, fair, useful, reasonable, and constitutional and many arent.

In the jury selection for the two juries I served on, none of the questions involved jury nullification. And if it did come up, I would simply say I have no idea what factors would matter to me in a particular case until I had all the info and heard all the jury discussion in the case, which is the truth.

 

[Cavedweller]

In practice, it will never matter. If you truly believe that the law is unconstitutional, make sure to speak up about that during jury selection, because it means you are guaranteed not to be impartial in judging the case.

I have to agree with @OldBroad44 on this one. Unless asked the question, keep your mouth shut. If asked the question, answer truthfully.

There is no reason to remove yourself from the jury pool unless you are trying to get out of duty.

Disclaimer: I have never been selected for jury duty, much less served on one.

 

[Jason999]

I'd refuse to weigh in.

But I've also never been picked for a jury. I suggest wearing a MAGA hat, no way they'll chose you

 

[OldBroad44]

Its pretty unlikely that any Oregon election I participate in is going to come down to one vote. So its unlikely my vote in elections will ever matter. I vote for symbolic rather than pragmatic reasons.

On a jury, its much more likely that my vote and my ability to reason as well as convince others might matter. Especially because in the near future, people are going to be defending themselves against violation of gun laws, none of which, as best I can tell, are effective, reasonable, fair, appropriate, and constitutional. And even if I couldnt convince anyone else, my single vote against conviction would "win". I like those odds.

I fail to understand why many NWFA members encourage us to vote in elections, where we are unlikely to ever change a single election. And brag about or suggest ways of getting ourselves eliminated from juries, where we can have a huge impact. Gun laws being passed is just paper. They are nothing unless juries believe those laws are effective, reasonable, fair, appropriate, and constitutional and every single member of the jury votes to convict.

Note that you don't have to argue that a gun law is unconstitutional to reject it and use jury nullification. Fact is, plenty of people disagree on what 2A means, and the SCOTUS itself has accepted many gun laws most here don't believe in. My own standard for rejecting a law and using jury nullification is based upon whether the law is effective, reasonable, fair, appropriate, and constitutional. And its a lot easier to prove that most gun laws aren't effective than that they aren't constitutional.

 

[arakboss]

Its pretty unlikely that any Oregon election I participate in is going to come down to one vote. So its unlikely my vote in elections will ever matter. I vote for symbolic rather than pragmatic reasons.

On a jury, its much more likely that my vote and my ability to reason as well as convince others might matter. Especially because in the near future, people are going to be defending themselves against violation of gun laws, none of which, as best I can tell, are effective, reasonable, and constitutional. And even if I couldnt convince anyone else, my single vote against conviction would "win". I like those odds.

I fail to understand why many NWFA members encourage us to vote in elections, where we are unlikely to ever change a single election. And brag about or suggest ways of getting ourselves eliminated from juries, where we can have a huge impact. Gun laws being passed is just paper. They are nothing unless juries believe those laws are effective, reasonable, fair, appropriate, and constitutional and every single member of the jury votes to convict.

Good points.

 

[ma96782]

Its pretty unlikely that any Oregon election I participate in is going to come down to one vote. So its unlikely my vote in elections will ever matter. I vote for symbolic rather than pragmatic reasons.

I can remember being married to a staunch Dem.

One night I looked over to her side of the bed and thought.....my vote was being cancelled by hers. Yup.....I got divorced shortly after that.

Of course.....that wasn't the only reason why.

Aloha, Mark

 

[OldBroad44]

I can remember being married to a staunch Dem.

One night I looked over to her side of the bed and thought.....my vote was being cancelled by hers. Yup.....I got divorced shortly after that.

Of course.....that wasn't the only reason why.

Aloha, Mark

This remind me of a Dilbert cartoon. Dogbert and Dilbert are on opposite sides in an election. Dogbert says their votes would cancel, so they should both just stay home. And they agree. After the election, Dilbert says something like, "Hey. Dogs can't vote." Dogbert says "Not directly."