I don't think he was banking on that, but I thought it interesting that posts about jury nullification were all over the front page on Reddit today, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1haimhk/til_... and https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1haejf4...

maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is

> maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is

It’s typically asked about. If you know about it and lie, that’s perjury.

It's sometimes asked about whether you'd follow the evidence - people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is.

As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.

> If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise

Nullification needs to be unanimous. You'd get in trouble when pitching nullification to your fellow jurors. (Or at the very least, have a mistrial declared.)

> people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is

If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire. (Hell, just ask innocently about it.)

> Nullification needs to be unanimous.

Nullification absolutely does not need to be unanimous, and it rarely is. All it takes is one juror force a mistrial (and another if it is retried, etc.) Sure, the prosecutor would likely retry, but again, it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial, and the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely.

> If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire.

No shit, so don't mention it.

> it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial

...this isn't nullification. A major point of nullification is a not-guilty verdict by a jury is final. No retrial. No appeal.

> the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely

You think this case wouldn't be re-tried?

of course the case would be retried, but if after the first mistrial there is a widespread partying in the streets, and then the second mistrial the same, and then the third trial starts there is rioting, the way the system currently works they might decide not to try a fourth trial. Of course I don't know if the U.S is there yet.

> I don't know if the U.S is there yet

I do. The educated, well-to-do, urban bubble has convinced itself—again—that this guy is universally adored. Because we’re mistaking—again—the difference between a symbol and the object, a mistake amplified by those who get their world view primarily from Twitter, Reddit, et cetera.

Usually it's phrased differently but it's on the form.

One weird trick to avoid jury duty for the rest of your life?

that and share the statistics on eye witness testimony reliability.

And if that doesn't come up, mention that your favorite movie is My Cousin Vinny.

HN few days ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42332688

In the one case I sat on the jury for the judge told us that we had to follow their directions exactly as to how to interpret the law when making a sentence. We were informed we not allowed to choose a lighter charge (options were misdemeanor assault, assault and aggravated assault).

Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.

Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.

> Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered

Why is that? Was it just the sentencing phase?

The jury ended up giving them assault, not aggrivated. Aggrivated required pre-mediatation. But the guy was drunk and did something dumb and quick. It wasn't pre-meditated. The judge was essentially telling us it had to be aggrivated, but also quoted the law. The jury voted for non-aggrivated. But it was 3 strikes so he got the same sentence (the full boat) no matter if he was aggrivated or non-aggrivated.

how do I know this? the defense attorney and the prosecutor both went to bars in my neighborhood. I got both of them drinks and asked them for the back story on the case.

Do you have a cite for it being legal for jurors to ignore jury instructions and orders from the Court?

Is it also legal for jurors to ignore orders not to discuss the case, post about deliberations on Facebook, or decide the case based on race?

I don't unfortunately, that would be buried somewhere in federal codes.

Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.

My question was rhetorical. Instructions ARE an order. Willful failure to comply is contempt.

The issue is that proving why a juror voted a certain way is kind of tough. The beautiful part is that this is a feature, not a bug.

A juror can't be punished for their decision, ever. It doesn't matter whether a juror keeps their reasoning a secret or not.

Its interesting you meant that rhetorically, your premise is wrong in my opinion. If you want to distinguish between an instruction and an order I'd think it has to be based on how it can be enforced. An instruction can't be enforced by a judge, for example they can instruct you to only consider what was presented but they can't punish you if you disobey that.

Perhaps the jurisdiction where you practice is different than the ones I do? In federal court, and the states I'm familiar with, the judge certainly can punish you for disobeying instructions. You take an oath, and the judge orders you, to follow the instructions.

In the situation of jury nullification, though, the judge would have to be punishing a juror for the verdict they supported. That isn't legal at least in the US, a juror can't be instructed to give a certain verdict or punished based on their decision.

Judges will be careful not to directly give instructions against nullification for precisely that reason. They may very well imply that you shouldn't go off the rails of evidence provided or laws and precedent as described, but that's as far as a judge can go with instructions against nullification.

> Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.

Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.

Courts can be against it all they want, it is still legal and well within a juror's rights. I'd never expect a judge or attorney to raise it as an option, but at the end of the day it is.

Jury selection throws a wrench in the system, lawyers have a chance to ask questions under oath and get rid of jurors for most any reason. As i understand it, its pretty common for them to try to ferret out anyone that may go the nullification route.