News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No.

Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by Qo on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:20PM (#3379208)
I'm a little disappointed that the article doesn't mention a serious practical impediment to nullification - the "voir dire" process of juror selection. They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?" You are 100% within your rights to answer no - they'll excuse you from the jury. If you say "yes", however, but you mean "no", then you have committed perjury. You won't get caught if you're crafty about it, but it's still a relevant detail. A more accurate title might have been: "People can do whatever they want as long as they're OK going to jail if they get caught"
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by gnaritas on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @06:25PM (#3379574)
> They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?"

I've done jury duty, they ask me no such thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by ChuckMcM on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @05:10PM (#3379372)
I answered that I would be willing to vote guilty if the law and the facts supported such a verdict.

This is absolutely true, and I am free to nullify (without having lied) if I find the law doesn't support such a verdict.

I'm wondering though what happened to the guy in NY (came to the comments here hoping someone had tracked that down). He was arraigned in Feb of this year.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by Qo on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @05:16PM (#3379390)
Interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the fact that the law doesn't support a certain verdict obviate the need for nullification?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by eridius on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:27PM (#3379230)
Wouldn't it only be perjury if you had already decided to nullify when you were asked the question?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by Qo on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:28PM (#3379236)
Probably. If they charge you, are you comfortable with that as your defense?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by Cadsby on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @06:43PM (#3379637)
Very unlikely this would occur. Jury deliberations are considered sacrosanct in American jurence prudence. You are under no obligation to explain your reasoning to anyone when deciding a verdict. And courts have been traditionally very wary of allowing prosecutors to delve too deeply into them to go on fishing expeditions unless a very specific procedure has been shown to have been violated.

The prosecution would essentially have to read your mind to demonstrate that you somehow "lied" in answering the questions during jury selection, which is why what you're describing virtually never happens. And there's always the plausible defense that you simply changed your mind as the trial unfolded.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by Qo on Thursday December 22, 2011 @11:06AM (#3381938)
This sounds reasonable - but doesn't refute my main point - that nullification, while not a criminal act, can often not be applied without first committing a separate criminal act, and that one should be aware of this fact and take appropriate precautions.
[ Parent | on HN ]