MikeK
Gold Member
You need to tell that to the cops, the vast majority of whom will not hesitate to lie in their arrest reports and on the stand. In fact, learning how to lie is an important part of becoming an effective police officer.In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.
Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.
Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.
Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.
As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.
It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.
That was a good juror.
The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.
Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.
I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.
Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.
BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
In case you don't know it, the typical criminal trial is a lying contest -- as anyone who has real experience with this subject will tell you. So all this talk about truth and integrity is patently absurd and reflective of imaginative ignorance.