But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all

No only statists like you look at judges as authority figures. It is like they are your some of your gods.

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

That is an easy one. If they think the guy did something wrong they will convict. If it is one of those stupid laws you support like licensing 10 year olds to mow a lawn, or putting someone in jail for cutting a friend's hair. Then there will be at least one sane person to nullify the stupid laws.

After all the first supreme court justice John Jay said it was the juries job to judge both the law and alleged crime.

Everyone isn't like you thinking we should follow bullshit immoral "laws".

Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

That explains a lot about you. You are a hater and you just want people you disagree with locked up. No wonder you are wrong so much of the time.

the jury on nullification conviction.

You are a dumb ass friend of tyrants. You don't convict someone be3cause you don't like them. You don't tell jurors that. Comprende asswipe.?

But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed

They should be informed. People have free speech rights despite assholes like you who hate free speech. Who hate the constitution.

My only point was that if

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

The jury has the power to acquit AND the power to convict. How is it fair to instruct the jury that they can ignore the law and acquit, while not telling them they have the power to ignore the law and convict?

"The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step."

That's only one part. Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants.

It's re-writing the law as it applies to that one individual.

It is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-American to have one set of rules for some and a different set for others. Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)?

A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

You have no problem with that?

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?

And how could anyone argue that a society of living, breathing people are bound to dispense fairness to a "rule of law" as though it was a person with rights, when it's the other way around, that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?

Fair to the Rule of Law? Give me a break. The law serves the people. The people do not serve the law.

Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

That is your whole claim, but this whole debate is about whether jurors should have the option to NOT do this, but acquit if they feel the law is bad, or otherwise should not be applied in a specific case for any reason.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

No we don't have the rule of man as the verdicts do not change the law itself. Obviously the legal system is not perfect as guilty people go free and innocent people get convicted (and have even been exonerated after execution), so if that is not considered the "rule of man" then the legal system can survive nullification as well.

Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases, and it's value to society would greatly outweigh the possibility of harm of errant verdicts in individual cases.

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

Yes, I do know that. The very definition of Nullification is when jurors judge the law. While nullification couldn't be proven in any individual case, it would be easily apparent if nullification was happening on a large scale involving a specific law, as is reputed to have happened with the Fugitive Slave Act and certainly was in play in the famous William Tell trial.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Jurors are first and foremost humans, and that is the reason why they are used to render judgments in jury trials. They are chosen because they are human, not in spite of being human.

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

Like I said, injustice occurs regularly in the legal system in spite of best intentions, and OJ's acquittal certainly was no result of nullification. They just didn't think he did it for whatever reason. Are you afraid that nullification would means murderers would be routinely acquitted? Do you think the average person believes murder should be legal? There's no way that's true.

Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)? A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

I have a problem with all those things but none of them have anything to do with jury nullification. I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim.

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

"How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?"

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

"... that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?"

I agree. The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

"Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases"

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

"I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim."

Yeah. I was wondering when you'd get around to disclosing your true intention.

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Disregard the black and Hispanic prisoners and our per capita incarceration rate is no different than any other industrialized nation.

There's nothing wrong with our laws. Our problem is that a disproportionate number of minorities violate them.

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

You completely dodged my point. "Fair" to whom? It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification. You are just struggling to invent anything you can against nullification.

How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

Whether the man is truly guilty or not is determined by the jury. If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict. And if a jury feels that way after all considerations in a trial environment, then who are you as an outsider to tell them they ruled wrongly? If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers.

As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that, in which case it's no more a violation of law than a presidential veto is of a law passed by Congress, and in fact, far more limited, of course.

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

You refer not to what juries can do, as obviously juries are free to do both right now. You are instead referring to instructions given to juries. And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant, not the prosecution, and instructing juries that they may convict absent any violation of the law would carve away at that benefit of a doubt. So no, it shouldn't be done for that reason.

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

They can, obviously, and may if they feel a true thug would walk free on a mere technicality.

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

Forced? You're losing this debate with that question. Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other. (The William Tell trial being one exception).

"It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification."

Yes, but you're missing my point. I'm saying IF the jury is informed about nullification acquittal then they should be informed about nullification conviction at the same time. Isn't presenting both sides "fair"?

I'm not in favor of nullification of any kind. I'm merely suggesting that any information or instructions to the jury be complete, balanced, and fair.

The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society?

You are a complete idiot. Go live in mainland China.

"If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict."

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

"If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers."

That's a cheap shot. I never said nor implied that. I believe the jury's decision should be guided by the rule of law.

" As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that"

Fine. Then, as part of the final test of criminal law, also allow for nullification conviction.

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

Apart from the occasional glass of wine, I don't do drugs. I don't smoke anything either. I'm sure a lot of people posting on this site, perhaps including you, are more into drugs than I am.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not. I do believe the USA is overly bureaucratic (clearly it is) to the point where the founding principles of the country have been long since compromised, and I do see nullification as one means of many to make the USA a better place. I do think marijuana should be legal. I am less sure about what the legal status should be for harder drugs.

I do not think that 535 legislators can reasonably represent the will of 300+ million people. I do favor a massive cut back of federal power, with some of that power restored to local government. I do think that the people of the US would be much better off if it was cut into about 6 smaller countries, so people in California don't have to put up with people from the southeast, and vice versa.

And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws. I think of it as a form of veto power that can be held by the people, in whom all authority rightly rests as per the DoI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jury nullification is a means of ensuring that the governed do indeed lend consent regarding specific laws. It's a good and proper thing.

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

You've entered lala land, and it's clear there is little reason to continue further dialog with you on this thread.

"You are instead referring to instructions given to juries."

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

"And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant"

Well, that's an answer. Just not the right one. Benefit of a doubt has nothing to do with it. The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

"Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other."

"Forced" in the sense that the judge instructs the jury to vote based on the law. If the defendant goes free because the search warrant was signed in blue ink -- and the law says it must be signed in black ink -- I think the jury should be allowed to ignore that.

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head.

"You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not."

Ah! Then what "victimless crimes" were you referring to?

"He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head."

Not guilty is a legal term. It does not mean innocent.

"And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws."

Yeah! Like in the 1800's when white juries used nullification to refuse to convict white men of murdering blacks. The good ol' days, right?

Screw the rule of law. We average commoners will convict who WE want to convict.

You are a complete idiot.

Don't call me an idiot when you're the one who can't comprehend what I'm saying.

The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

-----------

It so happened that the man whose horse had been stolen had always made it a point to get the best of any person with whom he had any dealings. He had never tried to do anything good for anyone other than himself. Consequently, the man whose horse had been stolen didn’t have a single friend in the entire town. The case was tried and presented to the jury.

The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.

Thank you. Will that be on the test?

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

About the only such instructions given to jurors by judges is that it is illegitimate to nullify any law, that the duty of the jury is to judge the defendant on the charges and evidence and only on the legal grounds explained by the judge.

I can't say I know of any case where any judge ever explained to a jury that they could nullify the law by exonerating a defendant, even if they were guilty. But there have been many cases where judges tried to intimidate juries or mislead them on this count. It's pretty routine for judges to do this, both state and federal.

Nothing makes judges and prosecutors quite as mad as a jury they suspect of nullification.

Maybe a little review of the origins of jury nullification is in order:

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

Once the jury knows all their facts, they will vote with their conscience.

But of course that depends on how the prosecution wants to relay those facts to the jury.

If the jury does not have all the facts, because a corrupt prosecution team has opted to withhold pertinent information, then the jury has no options. It becomes a mistrial and possible collusion as well as misapplication of the law.

The only option that is left is for this entire mess to be reviewed under standard review by the appellate courts.

It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is.

Watch this movie. It's an excellent example of how the jury is manipulated by the prosecution and the lawyers involved. It's one of my favorites and explains how the real world works in our courtrooms. And from personal experience I have known of court clerks colluding with opposing counsel teams to have perfectly legitimate cases thrown out by tampering with witnesses and evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead.

No it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Then I suggest a reader for you to get keen insight on how courts, judges and lawyers prepare you for the trial process to grooming your client. It's entitled, The First Trial by Steven H. Goldberg

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

That is why you were mentally incapable of responding to even one post.

Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict).

The problem is that if they do that to override an acquittal, they are very likely (though not absolutely certain) to be overridden on appeal, so they generally don't do it.

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Yeah, but I still hate the movie for it's libtard gun grabber theme, and the dopey notion that it's the manufactures fault if you get harmed by their product.

Sue the spoon manufacturer for making Michael Moore a fat slob! /s

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XO2b-45Wnw

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

You're right. This is a civil trial option only. In civil trials judges can overrule a jury finding for the defendant.