Posted by Mark Jones on 11/06/06 00:22

PTravel wrote:
> "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:fws3h.2974$0r.1662@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> PTravel wrote:
>>> Jury nullification is not legal, and any lawyer who tries to argue
>>> it will find himself sanctioned pretty quickly. The whole point of
>>> having juries is to have the determination whether certain conduct
>>> occured determined by members of the community in which it was
>>> alleged to occur. Juries make factual determinations, and never
>>> legal ones.
>> A juror can vote however they want to and can't be coerced
>> into voting any specific way.
>
> Quite right. And a juror also takes an oath to follow the
> instructions of the judge when it comes to the law. When he violates
> that oath, he violates the law.
>
>>
>> What are you basing your belief on this being illegal?
>
> On the legal requirement that jurors follow the judge's instructions
> as to the law, as well as 16 years experience as a trial lawyer.
>
>
>>
>> Actually, the reason to have a jury is so that it is the person's
>> "peers" who are making the final judgement and not the
>> government.
>
> The peers make a factual judgment, only, i.e. did the accused engage
> in specific conduct or not. The peers do not make a legal, ethical
> or moral judgment as to whether a specific law should be enforced or
> not.

Like I wrote earlier, each juror is free to vote as they see fit,
for whatever reason they want. The judge and lawyers may
not like this, but it is in fact the case.

Just because you have been a trial lawyer for 16 years, does
not mean that I have to agree with your position when there
is plenty of available information that clearly shows that you
are wrong.

A conviction of a pot grower was recently overturned by a
federal appeals court because a juror was told that she would
get in trouble if she didn't follow the judges instructions exactly.
Here is what one of the appeals court judges had to say:

"Jurors cannot fairly determine the outcome of a case if they
believe they will face 'trouble' for a conclusion they reach as
jurors," said the opinion by Judge Betty Fletcher. "The threat
of punishment works a coercive influence on the jury's
independence."

I fully support the conclusion drawn by this federal appeals
court. Jurors should have full immunity for anything they say
while deciding a case, or else the system is doomed. If jurors
need to be afraid of legal problems for doing their civic duty,
even fewer people will be willing to serve.

[Back to original message]