If you want to nullify a law as a member of a jury, don’t talk about jury nullification:
- during jury selection
- during the trial
- in private with any other jury member
- during verdict deliberation
There is no Michael Scott moment where you “declare nullification”.
Even if the defendant is on camera and appears to commit the crime; if the defendant admitted to committing the crime; if the defendant shook your hand and said, “send me to prison, I’m guilty” — you simply decide that you did not see sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty.
The moment you talk about jury nullification, you will be removed from the jury and/or cause a mistrial.
Just a friendly tip to those who want to serve their civic duty!
Buddy... he's not going to get a trial. If they catch him they will kill him on sight and say he resisted arrest. They ain't gonna let him "make his case".
They'll pull an LAPD v Dorner and burn him alive in a building, blaming it on a smoke grenade or flashbang.
Only the New York City cops are taking it personal. If he gets found out and he's in another state, it's 50/50 he gets taken in peacefully
There are two wolves inside me
One wants to show up with a Mao graphic tee so they just send me home early
The other wants to pretend to be normal but with no intention of sending someone to jail
If you can afford the time and energy I think the answer is clear
During jury selection, they can't ask you directly about jury nullification but they'll ask something like "do you have any beliefs that will cause you to decide this case except solely on the evidenc/according to the law." If you believe in jury nullification, the answer is technically "yes" (good way to get out of jury duty). You're also supposed to follow the judge's jury instructions after the arguments.
But no one else is in that room, deliberations are private. And once the jury has rendered their verdict or whatever it's called, the matter is decided. No double jeopardy, no review.
the law allows for jury nullification so you can say "no" and be honest checkmate atheists
I've always wondered how the US courts would respond to some kind of jury nullification PSA going viral enough, either naturally by meme or deliberately by some organization buying up ad space for it. What would happen if the majority of eligible jurors all knew about jury nullification?
We'd finally have one properly functioning piece of a criminal justice system?
Yep
And thanks to contempt charges being entirely under the purview of the presiding judge, you might also catch jail time for mentioning it
But a jury would have to convict me though, so if I just tell that jury to google jury nullification I'll be home scot free.
Fun fact: Contempt of Court doesn't require a trial, the judge just has the bailiffs toss you into a jail cell until you pay money or a random amount of time passes
That's kidnapping, that's 10 to 15 years
If you used Instant Transmission to warp him to King Kai's, you'd probably be fine
That's trafficking. Guess I just gotta hit him with the laser canon from Akira
Simpsons joke about missing punctuation, but I'm not clever enough to make jury nullification spell something else
it's so fuckin goofy like it's not even a specific rule it's just something you think of when you first learn about the legal system like, wait the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of the crime? they can say whatever they want, so if they do think the defendant is guilty but they don't think they should be punished, they can just say they think they're not guilty, right? and then you think, no, surely that's stupid, how would the legal system even function if that was happening, and then you find out that it only doesn't work like that because people are thoroughly convinced that the law is a Real Thing beyond and outside of the decisions of the people that claim to uphold it like christian morality kicks us all in the butthole once again.
so ... when do you actually use jury nullification if you can't ever actually say those words?
Or do you just acquit them by saying insufficient evidence, as you mentioned?
Option 2. Option 1 is like the cartoon character who monologues instead of taking action and gets interrupted as the butt of the joke.
I think you say "while we agree they broke the law, we do not agree with the law itself"
You do not say this. You just say that you do not believe there is enough evidence and stand firm.
What if I as a defendant tell the jury to google jury nullification? Will I be held in contempt?
MY TURN! I draw JURY NULLIFICATION which allows me to draw three additional mistrials-
That's not what it does!
Roll my dice.... That is what it does, JURY NULLIFICATION! Draw three- I summon JURY NULLIFICATION to draw three additional cards from my deck!
That's not what it does!
It is what it does! ... MY TURN. I summon DARK MAGICIAN. I also summon JACKS KNIGHT. You never saw this coming, I summon POT OF GREED
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
