Defiant Heretic

That would be a difficult choice. As far as the second example is concerned, you would simply vote that they were guilty of possession but not intent to resell. However, if you don't think that possession is wrong (which I don't, by the way), it's harder to decide what to do. It's not really your place to make that decision, but the people whose responsibility it is have fallen down on the job.

trekbette

Thanks everyone. Looks like I will be going back. I am an on-call juror on Tuesday. Two weeks ago, the first time I had to go in, they were looking for people to volunteer to be on a 6+ week trial. The judge was looking for a jury pool of 100+ to choose from. Only six people responded. I hope people from other days of jury duty also volunteered. I really don't want to be on a long trial.

DamagedGoods

How about jury nullification? As I understand it, if a juror does not think that the actions of which the defendant is accused should be a criminal offense, it is within their power to vote not guilty.

I am not a lawyer, and I have not done any serious research on this, so take my words with a salt lick. But if I was on a jury and someone was on trial for violation of a sodomy law or some other religiously inspired ordinance, I would be inclined to be pretty damn stubborn. Just because some lawmakers fell down on the job (or had an 'inspired' agenda) doesn't mean I'm going to rubber-stamp their bad judgment.

DamagedGoods

If only I'd seen this before I sent back my local questionnaire. I have city jury duty next month here in the Bible belt...I wonder if they'd have left me alone?

jayh

I guess that's what it boils down to. This is an area with a bit of politcal baggage and where the prosecutor tries to discourage very strongly, but appears to be legal, though actually informing jurors that they can do this is illegal.

How can they demand that I leave my conscience at the door?

j

DamagedGoods

I would think that your conscience is really one of the main reasons you're there in the first place. I always thought that the reason we have juries is that they help prevent the legislature and judicial system from getting too far out of hand. No, it's not perfect, but having the final decision made by a group of 'normal' people - hopefully with consciences - that have no stake in the outcome, and that aren't part of 'the system' probably does a lot to prevent a lot of crazy things.

When it comes down to it, if you decide to vote not guilty because you don't believe that 'X' should be a crime, what can they do to you? So far as I know, you don't have to explain your vote (except perhaps inside the jury room), and not agreeing with the rest of the jury is not a crime. If you can't in good conscience vote to convict someone of something, then no one can compel you to do so.

What kind of baggage does jury nullification carry there? In my experience people ususally think "conspiracy nut" when they hear about it.

Cipher Girl

I watched a show on the Discovery Channel a couple of years ago which showed a case that ended up with the jury deciding the man was innocent because they felt he was charged unfairly.

The show focused on the jury process and went in after the trial and interviewed the jury. The case involved a man who had been convicted and had served time for burgulary previously. He was then later found with a gun and charged with possing a gun while being a felon.

Well during the case, the facts came out. After getting out of prison the man decided to turn his life around and become a private investigator. He was going through the school. The school never asked if he was allowed to posses a handgun, but assumed he was. He did not know he was not allowed to own a handgun and one was given to him by a relative. He later went and was doing some paperwork at the police station and showed the gun to a policeman. He was then arrested.

Well the jury voted not guilty. The Discovery Channel interviewed the jury and they answered that since the man was a little slow (IQ around 80-85) he really did not understand that he was not allowed to posses the handgun. Also, he was not trying to hide the fact he had one. In fact he was trying to do the right thing by getting a permit to carry it as a part of his future profession. They did not agree that he was intentionally doing anything wrong.

So you should vote your conscience, and not let peer pressure push you. Each individual case is different. If it wasn't then why would we need juries?

Kevbo

If I'm on a jury and disagree with the law as it stands on the books or as it is being applied in a particular case, I will simply vote "not guilty." The reason juries exist is for the very purpose of keeping the legal system in check (i.e., jurors are legal "peers" of the accused, being held by the same legal standards, and should strike down laws which may possibly be unfairly applied to the jurors themselves). Otherwise, a judge would simply decide all cases, but the U.S. legal system puts emphasis on being judged by a jury of "legal" peers (People equal under the legal system).

Clarice

Yes, jury nullification is a longstanding tradition in our system. It is indeed preserved as a check on lawmakers. Generally, lawyers are not allowed to inform the jury of their power to nullify, and the judge will simply instruct them that if they find certain facts, they must convict. However, it is not illegal to vote "not guilty" simply because you disagree with the law. Plus, the jury is a "black box," into which there is to be no inquiry. People are allowed to ask you about your deliberations afterward, but in general you cannot be compelled to disclose anything.

In some cases, lawyers might ask prospective jurors if they agree with a certain law, and I think you have an obligation to answer those questions truthfully. However, if no one asks, I don't think you have to pipe up and say, "I would never convict someone for simple possession of marijuana," or whatever.

TealVeal

I thought that they routinely rejected jurors who disagreed with anti-drug laws?