Memes

1229 readers

7 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

474

Thumbs up (midwest.social)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Jury.............Nullification............

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

A good resource for the like minded:

There are two things you must do in order to nullify:

You must get on a jury.

If you are called for jury duty, we recommend visiting our online guide Called for Jury Duty? to learn about jury selection and how to maximize your chances of being selected as a juror. It covers topics such as appearance, behavior, and how to answer questions during the jury selection process. Doing a little bit of preparation in advance will increase your odds of being able to save someone from being punished unjustly.

Vote ‘Not Guilty’.

If you have a conscientious belief that acquitting the defendant is a just verdict, even if you believe he or she has technically violated the law, there are only two words you need to know: Not Guilty.

In recent years we have seen some people suggest that you must identify your intention to nullify in order to do so. PLEASE DON'T! That is one of the worst things you could do. If a judge determines that you are considering not enforcing the law (for example, if one of your fellow jurors complains about you to the judge), then even as late as deliberations you can and most likely will be removed from the jury. This most likely will leave the defendant with no conscientious juror ready to contravene the judge's instructions to convict against their best judgment of what would be a just verdict.

We recommend not openly discussing jury nullification during deliberations unless it is clear that several other jurors are also openly considering it. If there are too many such jurors for all of them to be removed and replaced by alternate jurors, then the most likely outcomes are either a mistrial or an acquittal. If it is just one or two jurors thinking along these lines and they can easily be replaced by alternates, the most likely outcome is that they will be replaced and the defendant will be convicted.

While you can be removed as a juror even as late as deliberations for indicating your intention to nullify, you cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt that the defendant is guilty. Neither are you required to explain your vote. You can participate in deliberations by expressing doubts about the defendant being guilty if you have them, asking questions, listening actively to your fellow jurors, and so on. If you feel the need to explain your vote, you can say something general such as that in your heart you cannot convict the defendant.

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/how-do-i-conscientiously-acquit.html

A much more in depth guide:

https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And 3: never mention jury nullification while on a jury, at least not during jury selection

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd argue you shouldn't mention it ever, online (if your name is attached to your account), or in person.

It's an easy way for you to get in trouble.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Get in trouble for talking about it online? I don't think so, but there's a good chance you won't be selected to sit on a jury if they know you know about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Get in trouble for talking about it online?

Give it a few months.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Can someone enlighten me on what would actually happen in a situation like that? He just walks?

[–] drcobaltjedi 4 points 2 weeks ago

In the US, the constitution bans double jeopardy. In other words, if you are aquitted, thats it. You're legally not a criminal of whatever it is you were accused of.

Jury nullification is the act of saying 1 thing but thinking the other, I phrase it that way because you can nullify either by handing out a guilty or not guilty verdict.

So in the event the jury finds someone not guilty, say of murdering a CEO for example, that person walks free.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Not a lawyer, but my understanding of looking into this a while back was that it results in a mistrial. So the state can bring charges again if they'd like. If the prosecution feels like jury nullification will continue to happen, then they may decline to continue pressing charges.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think its only a mistrial if only one person is trying to nullify. If the whole jury says someone is not guilty, then you're done. Can't be tried again for the same crime.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah that's true. A single hold out would be a mistrial and a likely retrial. If you can get all the jurors to vote not guilty, then it's just an acquittal and the trial is over without a possibility for a retrial.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's not true. There isn't anything special about jury nullification. If it happens, it happens and that's the end of the trial. If the jury is hung because some of the jury members wish to nullify and others don't, then it will lead to a mistrial simply because the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision - not because of jury nullification. Of course, any verdict can be appealed as usual, but there's no guarantee the appeal will be granted - even in the case of jury nullification.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you can convince the other jurors to also vote not guilty, the defendant walks. If you're the lone hold-out, eventually it's ruled a hung jury and thus mistrial, and they have to redo the whole trial with a new jury