[Jury Nullification] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust

Until the wealthy and powerful are held to account, why punish your fellow everyday citizens? Use your brain. Decide if what they’re charging people with is suppression or actually keeping society safe.

When those prosecutors start losing these cases, maybe they will start to rethink who they are focusing on.

  • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If you find yourself on jury duty in a very specific case (you know which one) you should know about this but pretend like you don’t.

    • arotrios@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Conversely, it’s a great way of getting out of jury duty if you mention it during jury pool selection in criminal cases - the prosecution will kick you out as quickly as possible. It’s why I haven’t served on a jury for over thirty years.

      • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Serving jury duty is an honor. Don’t get out of it. The justice system sucks. Help it

        • LordGimp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Lmfao. You don’t beat the system by obeying the system. You burn it to the ground a build a new system, with hookers and blackjack.

          “Seeing as your honor shows a 7, the prosecution will stand on 19.”

          defense also with 17 “Hit us, your honor”

          judge throws down a 4, half the courtroom bursts into cheers and the other into tears

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s miscarriages of justice every day in this country. We need this attitude in cases where they’re trying someone for no charge other than resisting arrest just as much as that specific case.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        in the courts thats true, like what is the circumstances of the accused, "the city targetting AA people preferentially and prosecuting them in quick sucession, like with luigi yes he isnt AA, but hes part of the class that challenged the ruling class. compared to a white person which they almost always become to careful not to charge them too quickly. in many cases the courts often try try to charge people on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony.

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Unpopular take but despite it being a popular thing, we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can. Every study ever has shown that people who know about jury nullification tend to dismiss evidence more often, and are more easily deceived by a sympathetic/ non-sympathetic looking defendant. It’s not even a law, it’s the result of the fact juries can’t be prosecuted for their decisions so really they can do whatever they want. This is enough to know that technically you can “nullify the law”. That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence

    Saying the law doesn’t actually apply despite the person having done the thing the law says not to do is very different from saying the punishment should be nil. This could also keep you from ever serving on a jury and telling others about this in certain circumstances could be a crime. All the legal minds who looked into this agree it should still remain a thing, but it shouldn’t be told to jurors explicitly. When you serve you swear to uphold the law, so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery perjury except for very very special cases.

    This is not a good YSK, you should understand what the law is as a juror. You could in theory reword this entire post without actually using the term and that would probably be helpful, but super complicated to write.

    Esit: I’m team Luigi (in mario kart of course)

    • Dubiousx99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.

        • Dubiousx99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          4 months ago

          Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.

          • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yeah, there’s a reason the juror box has been referred to as the third box of liberty.

            The four boxes of liberty are a 19th century concept. They are the soap box, (making your disagreement publicly known, and trying to gather others who agree), ballot box, (voting out corrupt officials), juror box, (refusing to convict for unjust laws), and lastly the ammo box. Typically used in that order.

            Basically, protest starts by voicing your disagreement. That’s your soap box. You make your disagreement publicly heard, and try to gather others who also disagree with the government. When you have enough people gathered together, it becomes a peaceful protest.

            But when that doesn’t work, You vote for representatives that will be able to make decisions you agree with. The hope is that they’ll enact change for the better once they’re in office. Basically, get rid of the corrupt officials who are working against the public.

            Third, if the government has enacted laws you disagree with (because you’re not being represented, and they have ignored your peaceful protests), then you move on to the jury box. Refuse to convict when you believe the justice system is unjust.

            Lastly, if the government still refuses to change and is continuing to prosecute people for unjust laws (for instance, secret police bypassing the jury box by skipping a fair trial) then you move onto the ammo box as a form of protest. Because if the government has refused to allow for peaceful protest via the first three boxes, then that only leaves the fourth box.

            As the government becomes more and more tyrannical, you start using more and more of your boxes. Hopefully you never need to reach for the fourth box.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence

      There’s a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.

      Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        IANAL, but it sounds like a “JNOV” could allow the judge to basically throw out a jury decision, regardless of what it is. It’s just that they almost never use it because, as long as the jury hasn’t been compromised or manipulated in some way, they respect the jury system.

        IMO almost everyone (who knows about lemmy) knows about jury nullification. But the real risk people should know about is this JNOV ruling. I could envision a Trump appointed judge trying to use it nefariously in the near future.

        • andyburke@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The number of people ITT that want to find some reason they can’t have an impact by quoting obscure legal theorizing is pretty wild to me.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not sure if you’re including me in that group given that I never said that.

            My assumption is that your goal is to make people aware of our jury system as it relates to the current political climate. If so, we have the same goal 👍.

    • CuriousRefugee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

      In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

      IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

      There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.

    • slazer2au@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      And it’s not like the charges are dropped if jury nullification takes place.

      Both sides can appeal the decision and when it gets to an appeals judge they will likely look at the case and say ‘yea, this should be tried again’

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    they choose jurors specifically that wont “jury nullification” i know quite a few people who were chosen on the basis: if you dont question thier authority(the ones choosing jurors), they love the pushovers, the retirees and govt workers, because they know they have nothing else to do".

    other issues if the judges ego is not stroked: you’re trying to get out of jury duty, they might force you to be on one regardless. i know subreddit and a forum that has a whole discussion around jury duty for each state/city. apparently some states are so desperate for jurors, they ignore most excuses.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think the judge can override the jury though, right? Ianal, but I thought the judge could do that for any case.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      The judge cannot declare someone guilty if the berson pleads innocent. The judge can say not guilty and dismiss a case.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s good to know if you live in NY. the area he’s being tried.

        Edit: I realized that I don’t know where he’s being tried.

  • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    I will also warn that you are likely committing perjury when they ask at the jury if they have an inability or refusal to follow the instructions or the law of the judge. Now this is difficult to prove, but it’s not something risk free

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That is not actually true.

      The right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the accused by the constitution. You are empowered by that constitution. You owe a constitutional duty to the accused; not to the court, judge, or government.

      The law is not limited to the acts of Congress and the States that the defendant is accused of violating. When the judge asks if you can follow the law, you are free to remember that the "Constitution is part of that law.* Where legislated law is in conflict with your constitutional responsibulity, your responsibility supersedes that legislation entirely.