Skip to main content
Live chat will not be available on Monday, September 7th in observance of Labor day. We will reply to your request as soon as possible.
Help Center Community Shop

Juries

JamesRK
This morning I was getting my daily dose of propaganda from the TV. The blond news dudeette was discussing a case (I think from Mississippi) with two lawyers. They were cussing and discussing the constitutionality of alienation of affections laws in various states.

One of the lawyers said "Juries don't have a choice, they have to follow the law". The blond news dudeette and the other lawyer just accepted that as a true statement without comment.

It is true that judges tell juries they must follow the law, and it's true that most jurors believe it, but that don't make it true.

One of the reasons for having juries is to ignore unrighteous laws which shouldn't be enforced. When it comes to an acquittal, juries are all powerful and no action can be taken against a juror for an honest vote (not bribed). Judges can override a jury decision in some circumstances, but I question the legality of that.

And while I'm on the subject of Juries, where does this "beyond a shadow of a doubt" come from? The standard in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt". A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which you can state a reason. Hopefully a logical reason.
0

Comments

6 comments

Date Votes
  • fishermanben
    I honestly think that many don't know. I had an argument over this very issue with a Law prof in college. She stated that Judges are the only ones allowed to rule on law. That is not the case. A juror can rule on law. They can believe that the criminal is entirely guilty of the crime, but that the law is bogus, and still find them innocent.

    Ben
    0
  • mateomasfeo
    I have no reasonable explanation...
    0
  • mowart
    I believe "Jury nullification" came about due to the eighteenth century British "Bloody Codes" where hungry children could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread. Finally the public reacted to those laws by refusing to find defendants guilty no matter what the evidence - because of the severity of the penalty.
    0
  • MrOrange
    Legal, illegal, officially recognized, swept under the rug, whatever, juries just make up their own shiite as they go, all the damn time.

    A classic example is the O.J. jurors who said they voted not guilty because they thought if they found him guilty the black folk would riot. (I guess they didn't think the rich white folk in Brentwood would destroy their own neighborhood and viciously attack anybody who wasn't white.)

    To answer your "Whence?" question, that trial was also a watershed event for the "beyond any possible wildest stretch of the imagination doubt" standard that a lot of 'tard juries seem to go by these days.
    0
  • buschmaster
    weeelll, (not getting into the argument about what juries should or shouldn't do) when a news person interviews someone, I notice they go into counterpoints only when they think that it's a really good question that the audience might be interested in. I've heard a lot of stupid stuff, garbage answers from ppl and the news person keeps right on going. -they ask the questions, they get the answers, and they move on. unless it's really worth getting into.
    0
  • john carr
    Going back to your original question regarding jury nullification, I'm sure the attorneys participating are aware of it. Recently my wife was called for jury duty, an interesting case where an injury ocurred during a robbery where the accused had a gun. During jury selection one of the attorneys (Ican't remember whether prosecuting or defense) asked the jury pool if anyone was a member of the National Rifle Association. My wife stood up and told him that she wasn't, but that her husband was. She was excused.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity