jury nullification

[Boker]

Now that I have your attention Ken, any thoughts on jury nullification? I heard the term long ago, and just recently ran across it again. Is it valid or even still used?

I'm going to speculate it don't get much media attention and from what I can tell supreme court rulings prevent defense attorneys from disclosing the information in court.

[Ken]

Now that I have your attention Ken, any thoughts on jury nullification? I heard the term long ago, and just recently ran across it again. Is it valid or even still used?

I'm going to speculate it don't get much media attention and from what I can tell supreme court rulings prevent defense attorneys from disclosing the information in court.

Damn, I wish we could get away with it! If a defense lawyer's strategy or argument even HINTS of it, the judge will hand us our head.

Now the jury, acting on its own, is another thing.

[crashdive123]

OJ perhaps?

[Ken]

OJ perhaps?

Classic example. And a total misuse of the mechanism.

[SARKY]

OK what exactly is jury nulification?

[Old GI]

OK what exactly is jury nulification?

If you're called for jury duty, you can do it too. Just say "Bring in the guilty bastard!" You'll get nullified (well, it did a long time ago or so I've heard"

[crashdive123]

OK what exactly is jury nulification?

It's basically when the jury, despite overwhelming evidence and the law decide - nope - we're not convicting this one.

[2dumb2kwit]

It's basically when the jury, despite overwhelming evidence and the law decide - nope - we're not convicting this one.

I can think of a situation, or two, that I would do that if I were on a jury.

[Rick]

They basically nullify the law. OJ was a good example.

[SARKY]

I thought it was when the jury found that the law that the charges were based on is unjust.

[Ken]

I thought it was when the jury found that the law that the charges were based on is unjust.

It's that, too. Remember Grisham's book "A Time To Kill?" THAT was jury nullification.

Juries have done it in some of my cases. Good people they were. Problem is, lawyers can't TELL THEM that they can do it.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

That is too bad. Maybe they should put in a little folder with this kind of info in a "Jury information packet" to be handed out to jury members and alternates. You know all the info that they need to know about their duties,powers, and responsibilities.

[SARKY]

Ok , why can't the lawyers tell the jury about this? In fact shouldn't it be the responsibility of the judge to fully inform the jury?

[crashdive123]

I would imagine that as officers of the court, they have the responsibility to follow the law whether they agree with it or not.

[SARKY]

So what you are telling me is we no longer have a justice system, it is simply a legal system!!!???

[crashdive123]

Zactly...........

[Ken]

Ok , why can't the lawyers tell the jury about this? In fact shouldn't it be the responsibility of the judge to fully inform the jury?

I would imagine that as officers of the court, they have the responsibility to follow the law whether they agree with it or not.

So what you are telling me is we no longer have a justice system, it is simply a legal system!!!???

Zactly...........

You guys don't know the half of it. Once, long ago, I posted, 'I don't practice "Justice" - I practice "Law." Don't confuse the two because they have nothing to do with each other.' Anyone remember that post?

As lawyers, we must follow the rules, especially in areas of law such as "jury nullification." I really don't like the way the legal system operates. "The Law" often takes precedence over common sense and what's morally right. And it often makes me sick.

If you believe that the legal system really favors the defendant, you're dead wrong. Remember these facts:

1. The government only prosecutes cases it believes it can win.

2. Prosecutors most often have have all the time in the world to prepare their cases. They file charges when THEY are ready.

3. The Prosecution has resources available that defense lawyers only dream about having. They have the convenience of having their offices, and books, and research resources located IN THE COURTHOUSE. They have all the necessary investigators, databases, experts, and everything else they need at their disposal.

4. Missing a critical witness on the day of trial? Well, the prosecutors can have a dozen police officers looking for that witness in minutes. Defense counsel has to beg for a continuance, and probably won't get it.

5. Discovery in criminal cases isn't anything like it is in civil litigation. The amount of information the rules PREVENTS us from obtaining is amazing. And very often, the factual information we do have - the stuff that will actually educate jurors about what really happened and give them reason to question testimony based on motive - is deemed "inadmissable."

Here's one example: The "Rape Shield Statutes." I'll be the first to acknowledge that anyone - including a prostitute - can be raped. However, if a man is charged with raping a prostitute, do you think that the jury is at least entitled to know that she turned 18 tricks earlier on the evening in question? Guess what - in some instances (not all, but some) that information, depending on the circumstances, is actually inadmissable at time of trial.

You all know the types of cases I usually deal with. Serious felonies - the charges that can get you double-digit or life sentences. And here's a secret - a huge percentage of defendants are actually innocent of such charges. I don't mean "Not Guilty," I mean "Innocent." "Not Guilty" means that the government didn't meet it's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "Innocent" means that the defendant REALLY DIDN'T DO IT!

Yet, the system treats all defendants alike. Think about the concept of "presumption of innocence." What do MOST people, including most judges addressing a jury, say? "Innocent UNTIL proven Guilty," right? That phrase alone is a subliminal message that the defendant will EVENTUALLY be found guilty. And that's why I move the court to say "Innocent UNLESS proven Guilty." It makes a huge difference.

One time, in a trial that SHOULD have seen "jury nullification," I actually heard a judge say "I take no satisfaction in doing this, but the law leaves me no choice......"

There's a very fine line that we as Lawyers can't cross in the courtroom. Most lawyers keep well away from that line. When "justice" calls for it, I'm one of the few who stomps all over that line, often leaning as far over it as I can, without falling off. We're the ones our colleagues call "Trial Lawyers."

[Ole WV Coot]

Yep Ken, you explained it so an ole hillbilly can understand and use it to his advantage.