You're not. If you advance jury nullification ideas within the jury room, you'll be replaced by an alternate (if available, obviously the size of the trial will impact that). Now, there might be different laws in different states on the matter, but the ones I'm familiar with allow removal.
Best thing to do is vote not guilty (assuming the case and charge allow it), and just say you're not convinced past a reasonable doubt.
Yeah from what I've heard they basically interview you when you come in, and if you ever mention even having heard the term "jury nullification" they're just like "ok, you're not fit for this, goodbye"
I don't see how you'd be arrested for perjury in this case. Even if you are asked "do you know what jury nullification is" and you lie and say "no" but then in the jury room say "this law is bullshit, no way I'm convicting this guy" they can't arrest you for that. You can't be arrested for making a 'wrong' decision, no matter what logic got you there.
"I thought I could but then I realized the law is bullshit." Find me a case of a juror answering a question during voir dire about something like that and then going to jail for what they said in the jury room. I'd be shocked.
They typically won't ask if you support or have heard of jury nullification during voir dire. They will leave that to the "is there any reason you feel you can't bring a verdict in accordance with the law and judge's instructions?" question.
Jury nullification isn't itself illegal, so you can honestly answer "No".
They asked when I went. They didn't use the words "jury nullification" but they asked if anyone in the room would be unwilling to convict if they were convinced someone violated a law that they didn't agree should be a law (giving a stupid example of "making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich").
Maybe. It was particularly weird because the case didn't even involve drugs or anything, it was a violent crime, with a victim testifying. Not something you'd expect people to go "yeah okay he did it but that shouldn't be a crime."
While that is the common advice for nullification, In my personal experience there is no one monitoring your conversation. Someone would have to complain to the judge or bailiff in order to replace you.
I mean, historically used, often everyone agreed "killing that gamer-word was cool and good". That's why there were lots of Federal civil rights trials after local juries refused to convict.
Now, it's more likely that you'll hang a jury rather than get 12 to agree with you, since nullification was cracked down on after all that.
No, if it's coordinated then no one has to worry about being dimed out to the judge :) but, it's very risky to bring it up openly, so someone has to do it, and it can't be you, since you know you'll vote not guilty. Prisoners dilemma type problem.
You're not. If you advance jury nullification ideas within the jury room, you'll be replaced by an alternate (if available, obviously the size of the trial will impact that). Now, there might be different laws in different states on the matter, but the ones I'm familiar with allow removal.
Best thing to do is vote not guilty (assuming the case and charge allow it), and just say you're not convinced past a reasonable doubt.
Holy shit can you actually be removed if you bring up things the prosecution doesn't like?
Yeah from what I've heard they basically interview you when you come in, and if you ever mention even having heard the term "jury nullification" they're just like "ok, you're not fit for this, goodbye"
Well that's obvious, I mean like during the trial
deleted by creator
I don't see how you'd be arrested for perjury in this case. Even if you are asked "do you know what jury nullification is" and you lie and say "no" but then in the jury room say "this law is bullshit, no way I'm convicting this guy" they can't arrest you for that. You can't be arrested for making a 'wrong' decision, no matter what logic got you there.
We should add this as a site catchphrase.
Definitely a struggle session in the offing!
deleted by creator
"I thought I could but then I realized the law is bullshit." Find me a case of a juror answering a question during voir dire about something like that and then going to jail for what they said in the jury room. I'd be shocked.
deleted by creator
Things the judge doesn't like, yes. Basically while you have a right to nullify a jury, you don't have the right to SAY you're nullifying the jury.
Both the prosecution and the defense. They have to agree on all the jurors afaik.
Yeah, just hang the jury
hang the judge if you can get a rope around his neck
:pog-fish:
You can't mention that you know about it so they pick you, obviously.
I guess you can also lie your ass off to get in, but if you go hard on that the defense is likely to remove you from consideration instead.
They typically won't ask if you support or have heard of jury nullification during voir dire. They will leave that to the "is there any reason you feel you can't bring a verdict in accordance with the law and judge's instructions?" question.
Jury nullification isn't itself illegal, so you can honestly answer "No".
Yea they avoid mentioning it. My point was that you can't seem as anything but a blank slate doofus to get accepted into a jury.
Completely correct.
They asked when I went. They didn't use the words "jury nullification" but they asked if anyone in the room would be unwilling to convict if they were convinced someone violated a law that they didn't agree should be a law (giving a stupid example of "making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich").
The more trivial a thing you build an example out of the more demonic it actually is to think about.
deleted by creator
Interesting. Wonder if your court had had "problems" with nullification before?
Maybe. It was particularly weird because the case didn't even involve drugs or anything, it was a violent crime, with a victim testifying. Not something you'd expect people to go "yeah okay he did it but that shouldn't be a crime."
While that is the common advice for nullification, In my personal experience there is no one monitoring your conversation. Someone would have to complain to the judge or bailiff in order to replace you.
They would. But, you don't want to give them a chance to remove you.
So how can jury nullification even take place?
I mean, historically used, often everyone agreed "killing that gamer-word was cool and good". That's why there were lots of Federal civil rights trials after local juries refused to convict.
Now, it's more likely that you'll hang a jury rather than get 12 to agree with you, since nullification was cracked down on after all that.
So basically everyone would just have to refuse to convict without it being coordinated?
No, if it's coordinated then no one has to worry about being dimed out to the judge :) but, it's very risky to bring it up openly, so someone has to do it, and it can't be you, since you know you'll vote not guilty. Prisoners dilemma type problem.
ah so just ignore all the old whites and hope everyone else isn't on some uncle tom shit