- From: Greegor <greegor47@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 20:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
On May 13, 2:59 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wayne Mitchell <gwmitchell...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> deadrat <misclegal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Advocating nullification is a failure to deliberate in good faith
By definition, don't you think?
Is a jury's office properly restricted solely to deliberating
whether the case is proven, or might we broaden our idea
of that duty to include deliberating a just verdict?
A jury's legal office is so restricted,
and a jury's legal duty may not so be
Wasn't the reason for a Jury of peers
supposed to combat mindless robotic
decisions that were narrow in scope?
With a nation of Tee Vee watchers and
people so naive' and inexperienced that
they believe everything they've been
spoon fed, the state has an easy time
finding zombie like jurors to prevent
any actual second guessing from citizens.
> Assuming that a juror is genuinely
convinced that the law being appliedis such as no state may properly
impose, to what does he owe faithgreater than to justice and human
That's not a legal question; it's an ethical question.
Should the two be so far apart?
I have even fewer
qualifications to pronounce on the latter
than I do on the former. And anyone
who's read my disclaimers knows their paucity.
>> and most likely defiance of the judge's instructions
Some of those Judges instructions
deserve to be treated with contempt.
Judges have orderered, directed and
instructed lots of garbage.
Sometimes the Judges instructions are so
contemptably wrong as to virge on
I'm citing the Federal case about
how large numbers of Domestic
Violence cases against Los Angeles
Police officers were deliberately
pidgeon holed and not prosecuted.
The researcher Mullally was ordered
by the Judge to keep the dastardly
results a secret from the public.
He was a man of concience and took the
results to the press and exposed it.
The Judge was even so bold after it
was exposed that he sentenced Mulally to
actually serve some time in a Federal prison.
Later he was even prevented from work as
a school teacher here in my Iowa metro area.
The Judges order to keep the secret
was so truly EVIL that it amazed me that
they would dare actually sentence the guy
to prison time for doing what was
BLATANTLY THE RIGHT THING.
This it obviously is -- and the judge maysee it as a punishable offence. Could there be a free-speech defense available to a juror who
faces such punishment?
Utter contempt might be a better defense.
I wouldn't think a viable defense. I believe that the integrity of criminal
proceedings trumps free speech, but others more knowledgeable may correct me.
My guess is that practically speaking, the court's need to keep jury
deliberations secret precludes trial of a juror for violation of his oath and
the rule against inquiry to verdicts precludes trial afterward.
>> and abrogation of the juror's own oath.
This is debatable. It may depend some on the exact words of the juror's
oath, but cannot an argument be made that a "true deliverance" must
include the possibility of jury nullification if justice requires it?
Do you honestly think that a juror's oath means diddly?
The Judges oath does not.
One state had their Judges all taking the WRONG oath.
A different state had a person whose JOB was
to make sure that each and every one took the
oath and the person eventually RESIGNED.
Every single California Judge was illegally
collecting income from TWO sources, both the
state and the local county. The California
legislature passed an Ex Post Facto law to
make it all OK AFTER THE FACT.
brief look online at a few state oaths
reveals that they talk about rendering
true verdicts based on the law and the
evidence or the court's instructions and
the evidence. As does the federal oath.
Judges oaths promise the full implemantation
of the US Constitution as well as state
That's a load of crap, especially in
Family Law or "Administrative Courts".
They violate the Constitution EVERY DAY.
I'd say the only useful legal definition
of "Justice," is a person who sits on
the Supreme Court. The law is about rule-based procedure.
>> Could a judge hold such a juror in contempt? Probably, but
I doubt it comes up much. Dismissal is a more likely outcome.
Dismissal of the juror?
Yeah, I meant discharge of the juror, not
dismissal of the charges. Sorry for
I'm thinking more of cases where, after the
case is over and the verdict recorded, evidence is adduced against a
juror for advocating nullification. If we accept that there are some
cases where jury nullification is proper -- and even the courts have
betimes admitted it --
Could we have a cite to some of those betimes? Go here:
This is from the 2nd Circuit in USA v Grady
Davis 116F3d606 (1997), a case about
whether the dismissal of a juror was proper.
We take this occasion to restate some basic
principles regarding the character
of our jury system. Nullification is, by
definition, a violation of a juror's
oath to apply the law as instructed by the
court -- in the words of the standard
oath administered to jurors in the
federal courts, to "render a true verdict
according to the law and the evidence."
We categorically reject the idea that,
in a society committed to the rule of law,
jury nullification is desirable or
that courts may permit it to occur when it
is within their authority to prevent
The 2nd Circuit ruling quotes the Court of Appeals for DC thus:
A jury has no more "right" to find a
"guilty" defendant "not guilty" than it has
to find a "not guilty" defendant "guilty,"
Who says so?
The citizens are the ONLY kings in the USA.
This would come as a shock to many
arrogant Judges I've seen.
I saw one Judge who actually RECUSED herself
from a case and later thought she was
going to sit on the case again ANYWAY.
There is NO provision in law for a Judge to
UN-RECUSE themself from a case.
Another Judge refused to accept a whole pile
of evidence to support my argument where
I was the plaintiff making my only appearance
and there was no pretrial where that could
have been done.
I was told my motion had been denied without
even getting a hearing, and spoke up saying
"Your honor I was notified by the court
that I was granted a hearing."
She fumbled and checked then came back and
ran the hearing like a drumhead trial.
It was embarassing enough that they
actually doctored the transcript to make
all the most memorable parts go away.
and the fact that the former cannot
be corrected by a court, while the latter can, does not create a right out of
the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due
process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power.
The ruling seems to take for granted that any attempt after a trial to punish a
juror for nullification would violate the proscription against any post-trial
inquiry into the jury's verdict. The ruling discusses neither contempt nor
indictment for violation of the oath.
> then how are we to defend from unjust penalty
the juror who has spoken out to propose it?
Federal courts would seem to preclude
post-verdict inquiry into the matter.
> Wayne M.
- Re: Jury Nullification
- From: deadrat
- Re: Jury Nullification
- Prev by Date: Mexico Drug War: Dozens Of Bodies Left On Monterrey Highway, Dissociative Identity Disorder Overview
- Next by Date: New Disputed Issues entry—The profession's disdain for "fine writing": The sociology
- Previous by thread: The First and Jury Nullification (cloned from misc.legal.moderated)
- Next by thread: Re: Jury Nullification