patrick.net

It's called jury nullification, not notification

Zak says

It's called jury nullification, not notification

Damn autocorrect. Fixed now.

lots of old threads being resurrected

And of course you are wrong, at least in some states.

Since most posters here on Pat.net are from California, I'll note that each time you serve on a jury you are given notice that jurors must follow the facts and evidence that has been presented according to the law.

And in fact, I have sat on a VERY serious jury trial were 2 of the jurors said they did not agree with the law. The foreman gave them the night to think about it. When they retruned the next day, one said they changed their vote to guilty. The other again expressed that he did not agree with the law. We debated more(and had further issues to deliberate. Again the foreman told this one juror he could have the night to think about it. This time I flat out said that if the juror's sole reason to vote not guilty was based on his dislike of the law, I'd report him to the judge, hopefully have him replaced by an alternate juror. The next day he came in, wanted to review some of the evidence, and by the end of the day we had a guilty verdict(and correctly so).

In California and several other states there are rules against jury nullification:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

Fucking White Male says

In California and several other states there are rules against jury nullification:

Well, nobody can punish a juror for having reasonable doubt. The best way to engage in jury nullification is simply to say that you have a reasonable doubt., and vote "not guilty".

Putting this power into the hands of ordinary ordinary people is dangerous. We must let the ruling class decide what is right and wrong.

freespeak says

finer clay!

How can the truth be uncivil? PC for the snowflakes here at Patnet once the truth comes out


Dodgerfan John is an UnAmerican dope, he’s just mad that he’s been cucked by a filthy Mexican broad and her criminal spawn.

Assume everything he says is incorrect

Stupidity, ignorance, lying and deceit are all civil, along with repetitive ad hom’s and preventing Free Speech.

But the truth is uncivil.


Welcome to the new Patnet, the ultimate Safe Space for Special Snowflakes

What else can be expected of angry white 40 somethings who ‘work’ for the gov, with their union protection and pensions?

Trumps Republicans are pathetically sad

justme says

Fucking White Male says

In California and several other states there are rules against jury nullification:

Well, nobody can punish a juror for having reasonable doubt. The best way to engage in jury nullification is simply to say that you have a reasonable doubt., and vote "not guilty".

Correct.

I will note that any reasonable juror holding the opposing opinion will ask “why?”

PCGyver says

Fucking White Male says

And of course you are wrong, at least in some states.

Since most posters here on Pat.net are from California, I'll note that each time you serve on a jury you are given notice that jurors must follow the facts and evidence that has been presented according to the law.

And in fact, I have sat on a VERY serious jury trial were 2 of the jurors said they did not agree with the law. The foreman gave them the night to think about it. When they retruned the next day, one said they changed their vote to guilty. The other again expressed that he did not agree with the law.

Which states is he wrong about and who has gone to jail or been tried for jury nullification?

Basically you have shown that you don't understand jury nullification.

I don’t think you understand the point I was making. And I never cited jail as the penalty. Rather the penalty is simple removal from the jury panel.

And fwiw the article I link noted a few states that don’t allow nullification.

Fucking White Male says

And of course you are wrong, at least in some states.

Since most posters here on Pat.net are from California, I'll note that each time you serve on a jury you are given notice that jurors must follow the facts and evidence that has been presented according to the law.

And in fact, I have sat on a VERY serious jury trial were 2 of the jurors said they did not agree with the law. The foreman gave them the night to think about it. When they retruned the next day, one said they changed their vote to guilty. The other again expressed that he did not agree with the law. We debated more(and had further issues to deliberate. Again the foreman told this one juror he could have the night to think about it. This time I flat out said that if the juror's sole reason to vote not guilty was based on his dislike of the law, I'd report him to the judge, hopefully have him replaced by an alternate juror. The next day he came in, wanted to review some of the evidence, and by the end of th...

Well, aren't you a fuktard then? Rightly so according to you?

Doesn't everybody already know about this?
The OJ trial was decades ago at this point.

Report for jury duty with a small sign on your lapel, "Not Guilty".

PCGyver says

Bump

Seriously? I don't see what is continuing to be debated.

In California, you can be removed from jury deliberations and replaced if you refuse to follow the jury instructions. That is 100% factually true. I've been on two juries where we were given that direction and its in the link I provided.

If a juror were determined(and reasonably intelligent) and disagreed with convicting someone, the juror simply would have to say he/she believes there is reasonable doubt. It would help if there were a small factual basis that the juror could articulate that belief on. And that would be that.

What is it exactly that you are interested in continuing to discuss?

PCGyver says

Fucking White Male says

PCGyver says

Bump

Seriously? I don't see what is continuing to be debated.

In California, you can be removed from jury deliberations and replaced if you refuse to follow the jury instructions. That is 100% factually true. I've been on two juries where we were given that direction and its in the link I provided.

If a juror were determined(and reasonably intelligent) and disagreed with convicting someone, the juror simply would have to say he/she believes there is reasonable doubt. It would help if there were a small factual basis that the juror could articulate that belief on. And that would be that.

What is it exactly that you are interested in continuing to discuss?

The fact that you still don't understand jury nullification. Just because 1 juror holds out ...

It results in a hung jury....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
Again I don’t understand your point. Jury nullification is the inability to render a verdict in the direction evidence points. There’s no need for all jurors to be “in on it” in order to be unable to reach a verdict . And no requirement for all jurors to reach the same verdict for it to be jury nullification.
https://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/jury-nullification-when-the-jury-ignores-the-law.html

freespeak says

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

The Republicans are going to make sure you’re silenced if you keep embarrassing them with American truths like this. Their simple minds have been occupied by the Christian charlatans who seek to destroy America, and everything that once made her great, for far too long. They are lost souls with no chance of salvation

Jury Nullification has always been a thing and even John Jay agreed it was an eternal principle.

One day the BAR Association decided it wasn't. Jury Nullification tells the not-in-the-least democratic BAR they don't have the power to just "poof" have a meeting or change their outlook/philosophy and kill an ancient Liberty.

When the Judge said "You'll be subject to media sequestration on your honor, and not allowed to read or follow the news during the Hearing does anyone have a problem with that?"

I raised my hand and said I'm a news junkie and a software developer I'm always on my computer with news sites open.

When they broke for lunch the Judge called out the ones that don't speeky English and me to stay behind where he dismissed us.

There is no left vs. right anymore.

There is only tyranny vs. freedom.

Know your real enemy.