Jury Nullification?

Question

If you are on a jury, would you be willing to err on the side of innocence (of the accused), and if necessary to rule in direct conflict with what the law says in order to prevent injustice?

If not, why do you believe that innocent people should be sent to jail (as nearly happened in the Duke Lacrosse case and as has happened in the Ramos and Compean case and the Padilla case)?

Each and every one of the Founding Fathers supported Jury Nullification. They all recognized that a jury has the right to acquit if there is any doubt that the accused is innocent or if they believe the law to be unjust. Personally, I would not vote for an acquittal in any victimless crime case (which includes "underage drinking," drug use, "driving without a license," "owning a gun without a license," etc.), because it is an immoral initiation of force to enforce victimless crime laws.

Answer 1

These are referred to as matters in extenuation or mitigation.

A juror ruling in direct conflict with the law may run the risk of being held in contempt.

If a juror sympathizes with the plight of an accused so much, then the time to express that is in the sentencing phase.

As for the Duke Lacrosse players, they never went to trial, so going to jail did not nearly happen.

As for Padilla, he belongs in jail, I believe he should stand trial for treason.

Answer 2

The Duke lacrosse layers never got close to being sent to jail. As to jury nullification, it does not mean the jury thinks the accused is innocent, which would simply result in a traditional acquittal, it means the jury thinks the law is improper. Thus, they may think the accused broke the law, but that he or she should not be punished for doing so.

If I'm on a jury, and there is any question, I would not vote to convict, as the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt (I'm assuming you're referring to criminal proceedings). Thus, if the state has not removed the possibility of erring on one side or the other, then I would have to vote to acquit.

Answer 3

I agree with the previous answerer who stated that erring on the side of innocence is not the same as jury nullification. The judicial system ASSUMES innocence unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if a reasonable doubt remains, the presumption of innocence prevails.

Jury nullification, on the other hand, is the right of the jury to completely disregard the requirements of law, even in the face of overwhelming factual evidence of guilt, and render a not guilty verdict. This happened early on in the Kevorkian cases, where, in spite of evidence that Dr. Kevorkian acted against the law, the jury did not convict out of a moral position that what he did was "right" and the law was wrong. That is the essence of jury nullification.

Answer 4

Erring on the side of innocence is inherent in our jury system, but it has nothing to do with jury nullification. It's called reasonable doubt. I would certainly vote to acquit if I perceived one.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. Sometimes it is a protest against the way a law is enforced or whether the law itself is just. I would not participate in a jury nullification, and the effect could be to hang a jury set on it, creating a mistrial. The prosecution would then have to decide whether to start over with a second trial.

Answer 5

Okay, you are confusing the role of the judge and the jury. The jury is the fact finder. That means they hear the evidence presented. The judge has the role of determining the applicable law. This is done through jury instructions.

The burden of proof cared by the prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you as a member of a jury are not convinced by the evidence that the defendant committed the crime, then you have reasonable doubt and should vote for acquittal. Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt. If you have a "99% I think he is guilty" then there is doubt but it is not reasonable.

Now if a jury did not follow an instruction, then there may be an issue.

Answer 6

Jury nullification is the act of saying...the evidence in the case is irrelevant, we're rendering a verdict because we want to send some other message.

A lot of people argue that the OJ criminal verdict was jury nullification, because the jury decided to send a message to acquit as "payback" to what happened to the Rodney King defendants (cops) in their first trial....

The irony is that both OJ and the cops were found liable in their second trials -- OJ on the civil case, the cops on a federal civil rights violation.

Answer 7

Because you are not performing your legal duty and responsibility when you ignore the law in your decision process. Your duty is to determine if the person on trail did in fact violate the law as it was written at that time.

It is up to appeals and the supreme court to determine if a law is constitutional and if the proper law was enforced in that case.

You are not the supreme court or the legislature. You have a specific job to do. To do other wise is a violation of your sworn duty and community responsibility.

Answer 8

Jury nullification is the unwritten right of the American people to enact justice.

Answer 9

Yes! And, if I were on the Michael Jackson, I would have said, "he is GUILTY!" I would not have given in to three people who hoped to write books based on the trial.
__________________________________
Crosschecking(Crazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯