|
Post by brocktownsend on Jul 1, 2010 13:47:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 1, 2010 13:56:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Jul 1, 2010 14:02:17 GMT -5
I got "relieved" from jury duty in Georgia several years ago because I told them I believed in, and fully intended to base my decision as a Juror on, Jury Nullification if I felt it applied. The States NEED to understand this concept.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 1, 2010 14:17:15 GMT -5
I got "relieved" from jury duty in Georgia several years ago because I told them I believed in, and fully intended to base my decision as a Juror on, Jury Nullification if I felt it applied. The States NEED to understand this concept. Almost all States and Judges will not even inform potential jurors about the duties and obligations concerning Jury Nullification.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Jul 1, 2010 16:50:37 GMT -5
I admit I had not heard of this.
So the jury basically throws out the formal charges? Can they charge and convict under a different charge? Or once the not guilty is he just free. Hows that different from an acquittal?
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Jul 1, 2010 17:06:54 GMT -5
Jurors have the right, or more accurately, the duty, to overrule a law they believe to be unconstitutional or unjust and acquit based on that. Supposedly there's nothing the judge can do about the verdict if it's unanimous. Even one person can cause a hung jury based on nullification if a unanimous verdict is required, but mistrials are usually retried.
The same SHOULD hold true as far as the States vs the Feds, but the War of Northern Aggression showed us what the Feds think of that.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 1, 2010 17:14:47 GMT -5
Jurors have the right, or more accurately, the duty, to overrule a law they believe to be unconstitutional or unjust and acquit based on that. Supposedly there's nothing the judge can do about the verdict if it's unanimous. Even one person can cause a hung jury based on nullification if a unanimous verdict is required, but mistrials are usually retried. The same SHOULD hold true as far as the States vs the Feds, but the War of Northern Aggression showed us what the Feds think of that. Correct, Nullification means that you do not believe the law is valid, under true Nullification, the jury has the power to set new precedent by refusing to convict and then STRIKING the law as unconstitutional. The court likes the power they wield, which is why courts do not tell the juries about the Nullification process.
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Jul 1, 2010 17:18:06 GMT -5
We damn sure need more people to know about Jury Nullification. The sad part is, judges use to be required to inform jurors of their duty of nullification before a trial was heard. Now they will kick you off of the jury if you let them know you know about it.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 1, 2010 17:22:24 GMT -5
We damn sure need more people to know about Jury Nullification. The sad part is, judges use to be required to inform jurors of their duty of nullification before a trial was heard. Now they will kick you off of the jury if you let them know you know about it. That is why you don't even acknowledge it, then once you get on the Jury, YOU can explain the process to fellow jury members. I have heard that some Courts will explicitly ask potential jury members if they know of this process, if you say yes, then you are out of the Jury Pool.
|
|