You are probably a Federal Criminal too!

[FHL85]

Scary read

http://reason.com/blog/show/135036.html

I know on one of the videos about not talking to the police the lawyer says that it is very easy to unknowingly violate a federal law.

I am starting to think that jury nullification is the only answer to these kinds of cases.

[JP8]

Scary read

http://reason.com/blog/show/135036.html

I know on one of the videos about not talking to the police the lawyer says that it is very easy to unknowingly violate a federal law.

I am starting to think that jury nullification is the only answer to these kinds of cases.

Good read. I had a day of jury duty for the U.S. district court a couple of months ago. The welcome video they showed us featured a judge telling everyone they must come to a decision. No mention of nullification. Glad I wasn't picked.

[Vig]

Good read. I had a day of jury duty for the U.S. district court a couple of months ago. The welcome video they showed us featured a judge telling everyone they must come to a decision. No mention of nullification. Glad I wasn't picked.

That's when you casually mention jury nullification any time you're asked a question during jury selection. You force the prosecution into using up a peremptory challenge and have tainted the whole group making for a rough time for the prosecution.

Seriously though, don't do this, you don't want to be held in contempt for educating other jurors.

[FiveBoxes]

That's when you casually mention jury nullification any time you're asked a question during jury selection. You force the prosecution into using up a peremptory challenge and have tainted the whole group making for a rough time for the prosecution.

Seriously though, don't do this, you don't want to be held in contempt for educating other jurors.

You've neatly addressed the problem: how to inform jurors about jury nullification. Many judges won't allow it, and prosecutors will bump you for even mentioning it.

You may want to check out JuryBox.org for more information on jury nullification. I set the site up as a sister site to FiveBoxes, expressly to help try to educate people about the Fourth Box. There's lots of info about the history of jury nullification, tactics to use as a juror, and how to get the word out NOW. After all, the people you educate may be sitting on YOUR jury someday.

[Vig]

You've neatly addressed the problem: how to inform jurors about jury nullification. Many judges won't allow it, and prosecutors will bump you for even mentioning it.

You may want to check out JuryBox.org for more information on jury nullification. I set the site up as a sister site to FiveBoxes, expressly to help try to educate people about the Fourth Box. There's lots of info about the history of jury nullification, tactics to use as a juror, and how to get the word out NOW. After all, the people you educate may be sitting on YOUR jury someday.

Thanks for those sites! They are some very interesting reading. Besides educating potential jurors what we really need is to force judges to explain jury nullification as part of jury instructions. I know that NH has attempted to pass legislation to that very end, but it failed both times. Seems like an email to my favorite congresscritters is in order.

[General Geoff]

Seriously though, don't do this, you don't want to be held in contempt for educating other jurors.

It was my understanding that a juror CANNOT be held in contempt for exercising or merely educating his fellow jurors about nullification. I seem to remember case law about this when a juror was charged with contempt, and it was eventually overruled on appeal.

[GunLawyer001]

You will never get judges to agree to issue instructions that jurors should feel free to ignore the judge's instructions. Most legislatures will also be reluctant to command judges to tell jurors that they should feel free to disregard the work of the legislators.

I'm not so sure that it's a good thing, anyway. People from groups who feel "oppressed" have been known to say things like "I will never convict a black man of any crime in the white man's courts", and there have been acquittals of murder defendants where there was no doubt of his guilt; the one that springs to mind immediately is the black man who killed a random Jew in New York, as retaliation for another Jew accidentally running over a black kid. He was witnessed, he was caught, he confessed, and the jury acquitted him and then went partying with him that night. I think it was in Crown Heights.

So jury nullification isn't just about Oregon jurors refusing to convict on marijuana charges, or Alaskan jurors acquitting on machine gun charges, it can also lead to juries preventing justice for crimes with real victims, if the jurors have bought into enough excuses. Lawyers will be explaining that sex with 5 year old girls is accepted back in the defendant's homeland of Backwardistan, women who kill their spouses will be told of the evil that all men do, and there's always the racial nonsense. Imagine your cop cousin being killed by any black defendant, and Professor Gates is on the jury...

I'm not sure that the DA will need to use up a peremptory challenge if you start spouting off about jury nullification, that sounds like a challenge for cause, and an annoyed judge will agree.

[GunLawyer001]

On a separate note, regarding the victimless crime of failing to alert the carrier of the contents of the package of sodium (which explodes when wet), here's the story of the crash of ValuJet Flight 592:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

An excerpt:

"The NTSB determined that just before takeoff, expired chemical oxygen generators were placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (Company-owned material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in contravention of FAA regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the firing pins for the generators with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. As the Seconds From Disaster episode about the crash explains, rather than fitting firing pins on the cannisters, the SabreTech workers just duct taped the cords around the cans, or cut them, and used tape to stick the ends down. It is also possible that the cylindrical, tennis ball can-sized generators were loaded onboard in the mistaken belief that they were just canisters. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "canisters" were empty, when in fact they were not.

Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen. As a byproduct of the exothermic chemical reaction, they also produce a great quantity of heat. These two together were sufficient not only to start an accidental fire, but also produce the extra oxygen needed to keep the fire burning, made much worse by the presence of combustible aircraft wheels in the hold. NTSB investigators theorized that when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing on the runway, an oxygen canister activated, producing oxygen and heat. Laboratory testing showed that canisters of the same type could heat nearby materials up to 500 °F (260 °C), enough to ignite a smouldering fire. The oxygen from the generators fed the resulting fire in the cargo hold. . . .

In 1986, an American Trans Air McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 was destroyed by a fire at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, caused by an improperly stored oxygen generator.

In 1988, American Airlines Flight 132 (a McDonnell-Douglas MD-80, the successor airplane to the DC-9) had a similar accident. A cargo hold fire caused by hazardous materials started, but the crew landed the aircraft safely. After this incident, the NTSB recommended to the FAA that all class D cargo holds have smoke detectors and/or fire suppression systems."

[FiveBoxes]

You will never get judges to agree to issue instructions that jurors should feel free to ignore the judge's instructions. Most legislatures will also be reluctant to command judges to tell jurors that they should feel free to disregard the work of the legislators.

Exactly why a grassroots effort is needed to begin educating the public. Which is exactly why JuryBox.org was set up.

I'm not so sure that it's a good thing, anyway.

I understand all the arguments against. I am aware of cases such as people guilty-as-sin for lynching getting acquitted in the south. But I am also aware of acquittals for violating the Fugitive Slave Act, and about a 60% acquittal rate for people tried for violating Prohibition. Jury nullification traces its roots in the United States to the Zenger case of 1734, and in England to the William Penn case of 1670, and the Magna Carta. See Sarah Palin's proclamation of Jury Day from last year.

Jury nullification is a two-edged sword, this is certain. And those edges are named "Injustice" and "Liberty". Personally, I'm willing to put up with injustice in exchange for liberty. The Founders felt the same.

".....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact." — Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". — First Chief Justice John Jay State Of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)

"But we all know that permanent judges acquire an Esprit de corps; that being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative power... It is in the power, therefore of the juries... to judge the law as well as the fact." — Thomas Jefferson, 1789

[GunLawyer001]

Look up the "Milgram experiment", for insights into how people on a jury might follow a judge's instructions and send a good person to jail. THAT'S the problem, that ordinary citizens are willing to punish the innocent if an authority figure tells them to. Also, the "Nuremberg defense".

Otherwise, an ordinary person (even one unfamiliar with the Zenger case, and the old policy of punishing jurors for reaching the "wrong" verdict) should figure out that there are no personal consequences if they vote their heart. No jail time, anyway. They might be stuck in the courthouse for a while longer, arguing with the other jurors. But the system can't punish someone for refusing to convict, in the absence of other misconduct.