Jury selection question(s), legality issue, (for the legal minds)?

Question

Would it be illegal to ask a question such as the following: (reason explained after the question)

"How many of you are aware that, as a juror, you not only have the right to judge on the facts of a case, but have the absolute authority to judge on whether or not the laws in the case are just or not, despite what the judge may tell you during your deliberation?"

and/or

"how many realize you are constitutionally allowed to dismiss a case based on anything, including not liking how the officer acted, or based on you not agreeing if something should be illegal?"

and/or

"how many of you realize it is not permitted by law, for an officer of the court to inform you of your RIGHTS do dismiss a case based on any reason you see fit?"

----------------
These are all technically "questions", not statements of information, very similar to common tactics used during jury selection. The difference is, this pertains to "jury nullification", which is a fine line.

if the answer is 'no' because of the rule of an officer of the court not being allowed to inform the jury of this, theoretically, what if someone was defending themselves? Would this free them up from the restriction, since they are not an officer of the court?

---

I don't mean it to be 'instructing' the jury to do this, just letting them know they have a right to do it via question format.

---

a jury ABSOLUTELY DOES have the right to change what is considered legal or illegal regading the specific case. They can not change laws for future arrests, but can in the case they are presiding over, despite what the judge tells you. It's called jury nullification, and it specifically protected by the constitution. The courts, however, do not like to give up power, so they have done their best to suppress that information.

---

first of all, mcmuffin, this is all hypothetical, in regards to something i heard on the radio.

BUT YOU ARE WRONG. GO back to flipping mcmuffins before you try to insults someone on a topic you know nothing about. As I clearly mentioned earlier, you can verify this by researching "jury nulification"

Not a class assignment, as I'm no longer in school. Something just sparked my interest in the matter.

I appreciate everyones input

Answer 1

these statments sound like they are coming from the defense table.
I was called to jury duty a few years ago...and was selected to serve. the case was a murder case and lasted 6-1/2 months.
during jury selection many questions were asked of us...some very similar to the above that you have posed...and you are right they are targeted toward jury nullification.
but in the end...i found that the jurors that were selected -paid no attention to these tactics and made their decisions based upon the facts as submitted by both sides.....
and YES he was found guilty and was given the death sentence.

thanks for asking....
have a great day

Answer 2

All of those questions seem improper. Advocating jury nullification is unethical and generally illegal. A juror theoretically cannot participate in jury nullifcation either. My advice to you...do your own homework lol =). This IS an assignment for class, is it not?

http://www.lawschoolstuff.net


*EDIT*

McMufin's answer was 100% correct. That is exactly what the law is. There is surely no constitutional protection for jury nullification, if there were who does it protect, the defendant? It cannot protect the jury as the jury is not a person. The jury is the trier of fact, the judge is the trier of law. The jury just decides what happened, whether a defense raised is supported by adequate facts, and whether the person had or lacked the required mental state to commit the crime. His answer was accurate.

Answer 3

First, a jury has none of the "rights" you presuppose in your question. A jury has the "authority" to determine the facts in any particular case; it has no rights. "Rights" and "authority" are legally different.

Second, a jury ONLY determine the facts: who, what, when, where, why, and how. Judges determine the applicable law, which is why a judge can overrule a jury's conviction (but CANNOT overrule a jury's finding of "not guilty.")

Third, the "questions" you posted are not really questions, they are statements posed in the form of questions. Furthermore, the statements are incorrect.

Finally, it sounds like you do not like your attorney's advice. Trust him/her. He/she has done this a lot more than you have and has the training needed to help you. You are blinded by your personal desires. Your attorney is looking at your case with cold dispassion and knowledge of the law. The jury may consider mitigating factors in your defense to recommend to the judge a lighter sentence.

However, the jury may NOT declare a law unconstitutional, dismiss charges because it does not like how the officer acted, or even decide what law is applicable in your case. All of those functions are reserved exclusively for the judge.

Answer 4

If you were a consultant to an attorney, you'd know that the answers to your question depend entirely on State law... and you didn't tell us the State. In all States, sex between a 13 yr old and a 17 yr old is illegal. In some it's a felony, in some a "close in age" exemption makes it a misdemeanor. In some States it's a crime of "strict liability', which means that even if he truly believed she was older, that's no defense, in some it's a crime of "general liability" which means it's a defense to convince the jury that you believed she was old enough. In no State is the 13 year olds prior sexual history even admissable. EDIT... Whether a jury would convict or not depends ENTIRELY on what the elements of the crime are, and whether those elements are proven or not. The jury doesn't get to vote their consciences, they vote the facts. If you live in a strict liability State, then all the DA has to prove is that sex occured, and that the girl was underage at the time. NOTHING else goes to the elements of the crime. If you live in a general liability State, then he has to prove that the sex occurred, that the girl was underage, and that he did not "reasonably believe" that she was of age. You are also wrong about the girl being called to testify about her prior sexual history. The sexual history of a child is totally protected in a child molestation case. This is not like an adult rape case where the victims sex history can, under "very" unusual circumstances, be admissable. A childs is totally blocked. Richard

Answer 5

Jurors do not have the "right" to nullify, but as a practical matter, they have the "power" to find someone not guilty if they do not support the law under which the defendant is charged. These are two different things.

The primary purpose of the jury is to determine the facts and then apply the law to those facts--as the law actually exists and is explained to them by the judge's instruction. It is also the judge's duty to see that trials are efficient and fair and that properly enacted laws are equally applied to everyone.

Therefore, it is in the judge's power to refuse to allow anyone to encourage the jury to nullify those laws. Our courts have held time and again that judges may do this.

It does not matter whether it is a lawyer or someone representing themselves. If someone is foolish enough to act as their own lawyer, they must follow the same rules that apply to lawyers.

Answer 6

yes, and they are yes or no questions, meaning you have to answer them. they are kind of trick questions I would say. You cannot dismiss a case because you don't like the way the cop looks, but you do have the authority(with other jurors)to decide innocence/guilt based on the evidence. There is no such think that the judge can tell a jury what he finds beforehand. It is a trial of your peers(jury)and the body of the jury is the one deciding the fate of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.

Answer 7

Most court rules do not allow discussing jury nullification directly with the panel members, especially not during voir dire.

Yes, they are allowed to do it. But the courts really don't like that reality, and most restrict attorneys from mentioning it.

As with all aspects of law, rules and procedures vary by jurisdiction. Check your local listings.

Answer 8

I think jury nullification is supposed to come from the jury itself. You can't instruct them on it. The idea being that if the law is so bad the will ignore the law itself whether they are allowed to or not. I would object if I was the other lawyer.

Answer 9

i just finsihed jury duty - You can not as a jurer change the law, you can not bend the law, you have to follow the law and use your common sense when deciding. Also keep in mind, when you are deciding a guilty or not guilty verdict, dont look at it as you are deciding someones fate, your not, they are because the criminal was the one who decided thier fate when they broke the law. You are thier peer and they requested a jury to "judge" them.

Answer 10

not to burst your bubble on this, but i think you'd have a standing issue if you're trying to sue about this in court.

an inconvenience to you in a jury selection process is not reason enough to change the process.

if you were a defendant and this were a problem? then you could have a serious appeal.