full auto, ethics, and intent vs. the law

[Frank Ettin]

Jury nullification is an interesting topic. Everyone knows that jurors may, in fact, choose to disregard the judge’s instructions on the law. However, the doctrine is officially recognized in only a few jurisdictions and in only a few situations. A judge would not instruct a jury that it could disregard the law, and it would be unacceptable, and perhaps even grounds for a contempt of court citation, for a lawyer to bring up the notion in front of a jury that it could ignore the judge’s instructions on the law.

Three states seem to have broad constitutional provisions authorizing the jury to determine the law in criminal cases. It would appear that even in those states the doctrine isn’t officially recognized in civil cases. It would be interesting to see how jury nullification has actually worked in those states. I wonder if there are jury instructions or if a defense lawyer has actually suggested in a criminal case to a jury that it could disregard the judge’s instructions, at least in recent times.

In a number of other states (including Connecticut), the constitutions provide that the jury shall be the judges of law and facts in trials of indictments or prosecutions for libel. The thing is that “indictment or prosecution” would refer only to a criminal charge. I don’t think I’ve heard of, at least in the 20th or 21st centuries, a criminal action for libel. In fact, I wonder if, at least since the end of the 19th century when portions of the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, began to be made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, a law criminalizing libel would survive a constitutional challenge.

In any case, it appears that in a majority of states with that provision relating to libel in their constitution, the constitution also states that the jury shall be the judge of the law and facts “under the direction of the court.”

Be that as it may, it’s still true that no one may intrude into the deliberations of a jury. If a jury is agreed that the law, as instructed by the judge, should not be applied for whatever reason, and returns a verdict obviously completely at odds with the judge’s instructions, nothing will happen to the jurors.

What happens with the verdict depends. If it’s a criminal case and the verdict is acquittal, that’s the end of it; and the defendant goes free. If it’s a criminal matter and the jury convicts, the judge could set aside the verdict if clearly erroneous; or the conviction could be appealed. In a civil case, a verdict clearly not supported by the law as instructed by the judge could be set aside by the judge or appealed.

Consider also that jury nullification can be a two edged sword. Some may look on it as a check on government by permitting a jury to acquit someone who might be considered a victim of government excess. But I suspect that during some of the "bad old days" of the post Reconstruction South and some of the early days of the Civil Rights Movement, juries regularly practiced nullification to let off various murders of Blacks, participants in lynch mobs and the like. We've certainly seen perversion of jury nullification -- at times when no White jury would convict a White man of a crime against a Black (or Native American or Asian or Hispanic) no matter what the law or the facts were.

__________________

 

[Ian]

Antone who serious thinks they are morally obligated to uphold an unjust law should take some time to think about the meaning of morality. The whole point of having juries in the first place is to have a check against unjust prosecution in the hands of the common folk. One should absolutely refuse to convict a defendant of violating an an unjust law, regardless of what a judge says.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Antone who serious thinks they are morally obligated to uphold an unjust law should take some time to think about the meaning of morality....

And who decides what is an "unjust" law? Do you have the final say? With regard to a particular law is there disagreement on the question?

 

[Ian]

In the case of a trial, the jurors decide what is an unjust law. They can't make laws more strict, but they can always err on the side of acquittal.

The idea is that it's better to let 10 guilt people go free than to punish one innocent person.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In the case of a trial, the jurors decide what is an unjust law. ....

Yes, that's the point. The 12 members of the jury must all agree that convicting the defendant would be such a monstrous injustice that they would be willing to ignore the judge's instructions on the law. That is something that will very seldom happen, and that's as it should be.

...The idea is that it's better to let 10 guilt people go free than to punish one innocent person.

And that's not really what we're talking about when we discuss jury nullification. By hypothesis, the defendant is "guilty", i. e., he did the acts with which he was charged. But the jury, in agreeing unanimously to ignore the judges instructions on the law, have decided that no matter what the law might be, the defendant should not be punished for what he did. And so, there have been times in our history a White jury decided that there's no reason to punish a White man even when the evidence showed that he murdered a Black man.

 

[taliv]

And who decides what is an "unjust" law? Do you have the final say? With regard to a particular law is there disagreement on the question?

The People

more specifically, a jury of "your peers"

I encourage everyone to google "jury nullification" and "jurors rights" and do a little reading. If you want to retain the last vestiges of our constitutional republic, you'd better be informed

 

[Frank Ettin]

...more specifically, a jury of "your peers"...

No, actually. There is nothing in the law of the United States that entitles anyone to a jury of his peers. One is entitled to an impartial jury (Constitution, Fifth Amendment); but you have no grounds upon which to insist that members of your jury be from the of the same societal group, age, status, background or education, etc., as you.

 

[nyrifleman]

No, actually. There is nothing in the law of the United States that entitles anyone to a jury of his peers. One is entitled to an impartial jury (Constitution, Fifth Amendment); but you have no grounds upon which to insist that members of your jury be from the of the same societal group, age, status, background or education, etc., as you.

I believe the "your peers" part is from English common law, where it meant that the jury in the trial of a peasant would be made up of peasants, in the trial of a nobleman, be made up of nobility, etc. In the United States, since we do not have any formal social hierarchy, any citizen (or permanent resident) of the United States is "your peer".

 

[Frank Ettin]

And who decides what is an "unjust" law? Do you have the final say? With regard to a particular law is there disagreement on the question?

The People

more specifically, a jury of "your peers"

I encourage everyone to google "jury nullification" and "jurors rights" and do a little reading. If you want to retain the last vestiges of our constitutional republic, you'd better be informed.

Let me expand a bit on my prior response.

Whether a particular person sees a law as just or unjust may be strongly influenced by his education, social standing, cultural background, values. Since the members of a jury won't necessarily share those attributes with each other, let alone the defendant (since the defendant isn't entitled to a jury of his peers), the members of a jury are likely to bring varied perspectives to the question of whether a law is or is not "just."

I think that's a good thing. It helps assure that if all the members of the jury agree to not follow the law and acquit someone who has actually committed the acts for which he is on trial, the application of the law in his case would truly produce a grossly unacceptable result. In other words, the application of the law would be unjust in the clearest possible terms when considered from a broad range of values and perspectives.

Otherwise, we risk the situation in which from a shared cultural perspective members of a jury agree that it would be plainly unjust for it to be a crime for a [insert race/political party/religion/educated/uneducated, etc.] man to murder a [insert another race/political party/religion/uneducated/educated, etc.] man.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Yes, that's the point. The 12 members of the jury must all agree that convicting the defendant would be such a monstrous injustice that they would be willing to ignore the judge's instructions on the law. That is something that will very seldom happen, and that's as it should be.

it need not be unanimous. it only takes 1 to hang the jury.

 

[Frank Ettin]

it need not be unanimous. it only takes 1 to hang the jury.

That's not really jury nullification, and it doesn't really necessarily help the defendant all that much.

He can be re-tried. And when he is, he gets to pay his lawyer for doing it all over again.

 

[Ian]

I'm totally okay with the possibility of a genuine criminal going free because the jury happened to all share a prejudice in his favor. I don't think that's a good thing, but it is the necessary corollary to a system that allows the jury to find a law unjust and prevent unjust punishment.

The judicial system shouldn't be held to the standard of imprisoning the most guilty people, it should be held to the standard of never imprisoning an innocent person. As things currently stand, I believe the government is a much greater threat to my life and liberty than freelance criminals.

 

[DenaliPark]

I'm fairly certain that actually building an unregistered fully automatic weapon clearly shows intent to violate the National Firearms Act.

I agree, however the NFA itself is a crime....

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the NFA itself is a crime....

Which comment helps illustrate what I wrote earlier about whether or not someone thinks a particular law is unjust at least in part depends on attributes such as cultural background and values. Certainly no court has thus far agreed with that sentiment regarding the NFA, and there are many people who would probably not sign on to that view.

So if one is on trial for an NFA offense, he probably shouldn't be relying on jury nullification as his way out of his pickle.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, folks keep saying that it's a shame that being stupid is not a crime. So, in this case in Bill Engvald's words, "Here's your sign!"

 

[NOLAEMT]

I think the judges instructions have to be obeyed.

they definitely do not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think the judges instructions have to be obeyed.

they definitely do not.

As a practical matter in the case of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial, that it true. But it's really true only because in a criminal trial a verdict of acquittal is inviolable -- it can't be touched by the judge nor can it be appealed. So a jury can effectively ignore the judge's instructions and acquit someone who is guilty under the evidence and the law.

But a jury can not necessarily effectively ignore the judge's instructions in a criminal case and return a guilty verdict clearly not supported by the law or evidence. Under some circumstances a judge can overturn a guilty verdict, and a guilty verdict can be appealed.

And a jury can't effectively ignore the judges instructions in a civil case. A verdict in a civil case wildly at odds with the law and evidence can be set aside by the judge and/or can be appealed.

Of course a jury can ignore the judge's instructions any time or any way it wants. It's just that doing so isn't really going to accomplish much in the case of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial or in the case of a verdict in a civil trial.

 

[GRIZ22]

i'm not sure of all state courts but in Federal Courts can acquit the defendant after the jury has found him guilty. The defendant may or may not be be able to be brought to trial again.

 

[Frank Ettin]

i'm not sure of all state courts but in Federal Courts can acquit the defendant after the jury has found him guilty. The defendant may or may not be be able to be brought to trial again.

It's the same in state courts, AFAIK. And a judge can even direct the jury before deliberations begin to acquit. But a judge overturning a guilty verdict, or directing a verdict of acquittal, is appealable by the prosecution.

 

[rajb123]

I beleive the evidence in the Simpson case was compelling, so yeah, this was a jury nulification IMO.

I live in NY and jury nulification here is common. ...this is just a fact. Prosecutors decide to not prosecute certain crimes all day long not because the evidence is bad but it would be difficult to win in a jury trial.

 

[henschman]

It is a very rare civil verdict that is overturned because it is "overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence." It is among the highest objective standards in the law, and judges are very loathe to upset the jury's verdict.

A hung jury absolutely can help a defendant... it is usually better than a sure conviction, which is what the result would be if the individual juror did not hang the jury... unless maybe the jury was not going to convict on all charges, in which case the defendant might get convicted on more charges in the re-trial. Hung cases usually get re-tried, but they sometimes do not, and they frequently result in the defendant getting to plea bargain out for more favorable terms than what were available prior to trial. If nothing else, he gets a second shot at a trial, and the possibility, however slim, of acquittal.

I will hang every jury I am ever on unless it is a trial for an actual initiation of force or fraud against another person. There is nothing magical about the law that should compel everyone to obey it even if they find it oppressive... the law is nothing but a group of people getting together and threatening to use force. When the law itself is an unjustified initiation of force, it deserves to be resisted just like any other act of aggression.

And you're frickin A right I will be the judge of what is just and unjust. I will apply my capacity for reason and come to my own conclusion, like a rational being does.

 

[rajb123]

Unless the gun in question was used in a violent crime, I would be inclined to hang or aquit if this case was brought my way.... it is an un-just law IMO.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Unless the gun in question was used in a violent crime, I would be inclined to hang or aquit if this case was brought my way.... it is an un-just law IMO.

Is the law somehow more just if the weapon in question is used in a crime? The law is either just or it isn't. But your argument here- that the law is fluid, depending on the circumstances of the prosecution- is exactly the reason 'jury nullification' is the wrong solution to the problem of unjust laws. Jury nullification allows an unjust law to remain on the books, so that a jury can selectively choose guilt or acquittal based on their own arbitrary prejudices regarding the defendant. This is directly counter to every precept of our judicial system.

Several have argued here that 'jury nullification exists, and has historically' therefore implying that it is legitimate. Of course, the same rhetorical argument has been invoked in defense of slavery, lynching and any number of other abuses.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Who is the victim of an unregistered machine gun?

 

[9mm+]

Okay, this thread took so many turns that it made me dizzy. If you possess an unregistered MG, then you are in violation of the law. What you intend to do with the unregistered MG is immaterial to the possession violation. Of course, you can discuss MG conversions all you would like -- that unto itself is not illegal -- but the moment you start modifying sears, etc., to go full auto, you're violating the law regardless of the intent.