I got a notice today....

[dangitgriff]

The individual sitting in a jury decides—completely independent of state coercion. That’s exactly how it is supposed to work. The individual states have the most nullification power over the national government:
https://youtu.be/37tEeO-qTYo

[Bookworm]

The judge made you foreman?

I've been on 2 juries. The jury voted, via private ballot in the jury room, for foreman. The judge wasn't, and shouldn't be, involved.

[Buzz Krumhunger]

There’s a very nice Federal Courthouse at the edge of my town. But the Federal District Judge doesn’t like to travel here from his home town, so Federal Jury Pool selection and trials take place in Pecos, a hundred miles from here. Pecos is in the middle of an oil boom, so there are seldom any hotel rooms available, and the oil field traffic is treacherous, to boot. I received a notice a couple of months ago that my name was on the Federal Pool list but fortunately I have thus far not received a notice to appear, for some reason.

[blackthorn]

Quote "NOW - let's change the outcome of the trial and say you were found not guilty. You are not responsible for the cost of that jury because we don't assess court costs when people are found not guilty. Under your theory the taxpayers would then be responsible for compensating those jurors at their normal hourly rate and that trial would cost the taxpayers $48,000."

On the other side of the coin, the "taxpayer" who's dollars you defend gets to at at home, go to work and make wages to support his/her family while the juror loses money and time. Some trials drag on for months, potentially bankrupting someone who lives from paycheque to paycheque. A more fair system would be to set jurors pay at the national average pay for all workers. At least then it would mitigate any financial hardship caused by doing you "civic duty".

[Petrol & Powder]

..........

On the other side of the coin, the "taxpayer" who's dollars you defend gets to at at home, go to work and make wages to support his/her family while the juror loses money and time. Some trials drag on for months, potentially bankrupting someone who lives from paycheque to paycheque. A more fair system would be to set jurors pay at the national average pay for all workers. At least then it would mitigate any financial hardship caused by doing you "civic duty".

There's no such thing as government money, there's only your money and my money.

If someone's service on a jury would bankrupt them, that would be an exemption to serve on a jury.

And I notice you live in Canada, I don't know how you handle juries in Canada but I'm happy with the way we do it down here.

[dangitgriff]

A financial incentive would definitely be problematic for seating jurors. Trials would become even more costly for taxpayers than they already are...then again, prosecutors are manipulating defendants to take plea deals to avoid bringing a case to trial.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s light years ahead of undeveloped nations’ legal systems, where they exist at all. I suppose it will have to do until we run out of other people’s money to hear cases.

[WRideout]

Right after I had resigned from the Ventura County California Sheriff's Crime lab as a blood alcohol analyst, I received a jury summons. When I got there, I found out it was a drunk driving case; most likely the blood alcohol analysis had been done by my former supervisor. I knew I would never be selected for this jury, but it took me until noon to get to the judge and explain. He let me go so I could start my new job. Coincidentally, the secretary from the crime lab was also called for that same jury panel.

Wayne

[Char-Gar]

Some facts to consider when discussing jury duty:

When the jury is impaneled it is sworn in. The jury swears to decide the case based on evidence entered into the court record and nothing else.

In America the jury is the decider of disputed facts and the judge is the decider of the law. When the jury retires to deliberate the disputed facts, the judge gives them instruction on the law which is to be followed.

In either a civil or criminal case, there can be a "Bench Trial" where the judge becomes the decider of disputed facts and the law.

In a civil case, if the jury does not follow the law, a motion for "judgment NOV (not withstand the verdict)" can be made and if the judge agree the jury verdict can be set aside the the judge enter a verdict based on the facts and the law.

In a criminal case, if a jury does not follow the law, there is little the prosecution can do about it because they don't have the right of appeal.

There is no such things as "jury nullification", that is just a term concocked to sugar coat a jury that violates it's sworn oath. Such actions violate the basic principals of American Rule of Law and is dangerous to our Constitutional Republic. The vast majority of other contries do not have trial by jury. In those few that do it is quite different that our jury system. The right to trial by jury is a Constitutional guarantee and when it becomes perverted, the Constitution becomes subverted. Juries that take their oath with great seriousness, are the bedrock of our American system.

[JBinMN]

The concept of "jury nullification", is based on the same principles that formed this nation, The US of A.

A battle against tyranny & unjust laws.

By example, the Declaration of Independence was written based on the same type of concept as jury nullification, that when a law or laws are passed, that are unjust, tyrannical & go against the Rights of men, they should not be followed.

When the men who wrote the Dec. of Independence wrote it, they listed various unjust actions taken against the citizens & that they no longer would follow such unjust & tyrannical laws.

The "Tories" mocked them & questioned their allegiance to the King & parliament, ( perhaps like the most recent post appeared to do, IMO) and took a stance that the King & parliaments laws were not unjust & tyrannical & all should bow to their authority. Claimed the "Patriots" were "treasonous", and breaking their oath as British subjects to follow the King & his sovereignty..

Well, in a way they were "treasonous" to the British King & his sovereignty, since the king was abusing them & they were not going to take it any more. They saw that there were God Given Rights to all men & the laws of the King were infringing on those God Given Rights, as well as not providing compensation for the confiscation & use of civilian property, and thus declared independence from that condition.

So, the "Patriots" were the ones who fought for the Independence from such unjust & tyrannical laws, & history shows who won...

I would prefer to be on the side that has the concept that unjust & tyrannical laws are not to be tolerated & one should do what is necessary to prevent their implementation or exercise. That includes keeping ones commitment to upholding ones principles.

I have not had to take the "sworn oath" of a jury, as I have not yet ever reached that point in such jury selection proceedings. Likely because of my questions about jury nullification & my committment to the principles I have mentioned here. Thus, I have not broken any oath. There would be no need to even worry about the concept of jury nullification if the laws the accused was being charged with breaking were constitutional ones & the evidence used was not discovered thru illegal means , or by the infringement of the accused civil/constitutional rights.

It would be "moot", as there would be no need to be concerned about it.

Even if the jury felt that the punishment "did not fit the crime", such as "death for stealing a loaf of bread", or some sort of unconscionable punishment for a slight offense, I could see where that would be good reason for the concept of "jury nullification" of that proceeding & conviction/punishment.

The concept of jury nullification does exist, regardless of what others may tell folks. As well as the concept being used for more that just criminal trials. As mentioned the concept/principal of people doing what is "right" to preserve the freedom from tyranny & unjust law has been used thru out history for those who felt they were not going to be a part of such acts.

( I might mention , for those who question my use of "thru out history", might consider the Alamo, and the war for TExas independence as just one of those instances, and I will leave other examples for those who wish to look for themselves.)

I would also urge ones who have to consider their presence on a jury, that one might want to take the mindset of considering how YOU would see things, were it YOU on trial, based on an unconstitutional law(s) where the evidence had been possibly obtained thru illegal or unconstitutional means & that illegal or unconstitutional evidence was going to be used against YOU to put YOU in Prison for a long time, or at minimum, Take AWAY your God given right(s), such as the 2nd Amend. RTBA...

OR, how would YOU feel if it was going to be YOU being punished excessively for stealing a loaf of bread, or some other slight crime? Even if the facts had shown that the accused had done the crime, would it be right for the punishment to be excessive to the merit or worth of the crime committed?

Others may not feel that same way. That is just fine with me.

BTW, I do want to ask these learned folks, who seem to think that one should just "follow the unjust laws", just what is the consequences of saying one will not follow this supposed "oath" that jurors take?

Or, put another way, "Is there a consequence for saying one will not take the oath at all?".

If there is some unpleasant consequence to not being willing to take that "oath", then I think that the person who does take the oath against their principles to avoid unpleasant consequences is put into jeopardy(< meaning, "Damned if they do, damned if they don't.) for not taking the oath & thus such an oath is not worth being followed as it coerces /compels someone to do something in which they would feel is wrong in principle to their beliefs. Not unlike a pacifist wanting to avoid taking lives or harming any one & the concept of a "conscientious objector", or the like.

Well, maybe these esteemed & learned folks will take the time to answer those last few questions, at least to share some knowledge of how such things work from their point of view...

Or, not...

[Char-Gar]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00. A Class C misdemeanor is theft of property less than $50.00. I see no great oppressive injustice in this law, unless one thinks stealing another persons property should be legal.

[JBinMN]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00.

It doesn't matter if something is a "federal offense", or not. The principles/concept can be applied for any or all criminal proceedings. ( or punishments)

Is it a matter of will one be ( or is one) compelled to take part in a proceeding in which they feel the law, is unjust/tyrannical, or if the punishment is excessive to the crime committed, and if so compelled by some sort of jeopardy for not complying with what they feel is unjust, should they not follow their principles or should they be a part of the jury decision that will end up with someone having their liberties infringed upon by illegal or un constitutional means, or punished in an excessive manner(cruel & unusual)?

Care to take a shot at answering the questions asked in my previous post?

If not, that is alright. I understand that it is sometimes easier for one to put out an opinion but not want to further defend ones stance against any possible questioning of that opinion... If even for educational reasons & not justification reasons. It happens all the time in the "editorial section" of newspapers & even in the "comments" area below many internet articles. One would not be alone in that regard, anyway.

I simply chose to defend "my" stance & opinion about "my" reasons for considering this supposedly non existent concept of "jury nullification". Others may not feel that way, and if so. I understand.

[David2011]

Jury duty is a civic duty, not an occupation. Instead of looking at the low amount paid to jurors for performing a needed service, perhaps one should look at the pay, regardless of how paltry, as a bonus. Some little compensation that you were awarded but not entitled to.

And it would be good to remember the source of that pay for jurors. In my state if a criminal defendant is convicted, the defendant is responsible for a portion (but not all) of the trial costs, including the cost of a jury. However, if a defendant is not convicted those costs are borne entirely by the taxpayers. So if you serve on a jury, regardless of the outcome of the trial, you are essentially paying yourself. If the defendant is convicted the court will require the defendant to pay court costs which, if collected, will only partially offset the public cost of the trial. If the defendant is not convicted the public will bear the entire cost of the trial. And of course, you would do well to remember that few criminal defendants actually PAY their court costs.

IS JURY DUTY A BURDEN ? The answer is YES, but it is a burden all good citizens must bear.

. . .

Yes it is inconvenient. Yes the pay sucks. Yes the selection process may appear to be a bit mysterious. And YES, it is a civic duty.

Having served for jury duty in three states has given me some perspective.

In Texas you're subject to jury duty for a week under most circumstances. In Harris County (Houston area) the cost to park and eat exceeds the daily payment and often requires going into crowded downtown Houston where there is not reserved parking for jury duty people. IMO a citizen should not have money taken out of pocket to meet the obligations. Once selected for a jury, meals are provided.

In New Mexico, jury duty is onerous. The term is six weeks. Jurors are required to call in and listen to a recording every Sunday through Thursday to find out if they have to report the next day. Six weeks is a long time for the individual and their employer not knowing if the person will be at work the next day. At least when called, the juror is paid enough to cover all expenses including the option to receive a mileage payment. Last time I was called I sat through a trail that took four days. I was the second alternate juror, bumped up to alternate when something happened that a juror was unable to continue and did not get to participate in the deliberations. Fortunately the accused was found guilty on multiple charges after having (initiating) a shootout with the police. He was a previously convicted felon in possession of multiple firearms as well. Those charges were dealt with in a separate Federal trial where he was also found guilty but for some reason a convicted felon was able to procure firearms even though there were laws against him doing so.

The third state was California, about 19 years ago and it seems like it was only a one day obligation. I was not selected for a trial.

[JBinMN]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00. A Class C misdemeanor is theft of property less than $50.00. I see no great oppressive injustice in this law, unless one thinks stealing another persons property should be legal.

I see you edited to add to your previous post that I quoted earlier. That happens as well, but you have added something that I want to address.

You seem to be trying to come up with some hypothetical that justifies your stance, using the "loaf of bread" analogy I used previously, but also seem to/appear to fail in understanding that it is not all laws( or cases) that might be questioned for their legality or constitutionality, nor for their punishments being excessive that I am proposing as a possible reason of using the concept of "jury nullification".

I am mentioning it when there is a case where there was an abuse of the evidence gathering that infringed upon ones rights, or the evidence was gathered thru illegal means. Or, when a punisment is determined that is excessive to the crime committed.

{ Your example in the quote above seems to be a reasonable punishment for the crime, and if the evidence was not obtained illegally or infringed on ones constitutional rights, then the whole thing is not one that would even be considered as a reason for the concept of "jury nullification" in either regard. IOW, not so good of an example to defend ones stance in regard to jury nullification. it is an "apple" when "oranges" are being discussed, and while both are round & fruits, there are obvious differences between the two, and most, if familiar with those differences, would not confuse the two..}

If you are unable to understand that someone not wanting to allow, or be a part of a situation where someone is punished or deprived of property/liberty by suspect or illegal means, and instead, think that one should just "go along" with an unjust law or illegal activity, than we are not going to be able to understand one another apparently. That is a pity...

[David2011]

dangitgriff, don't know why you feel compelled to use the largest typeface possible.

And who gets to decide if the law is "unjust" (to use your term)?

Jurors don't get to make their own laws or decide if they personally believe a law is "unjust".

Actually, that is exactly the prerogative of the jury. The jury cannot "make their own laws" but the entire jury, if they believe a law is unjust, can make such a declaration. For example, it is supposedly illegal to photograph a rabbit in Wyoming between January and April without a permit. Since that is in conflict with other laws that permit anything in public view to be photographed I can easily see that law becoming a subject of jury nullification.

[Char-Gar]

JB...I agree that you should not be forced to serve on a jury, but you won't be forced to do so. Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

As to all other matters, you are entitled to your opinion on whatever subject. I will not try and disposse you of any opinion. All I concern myself with are incorrect or mistated facts.

[Char-Gar]

Actually, that is exactly the prerogative of the jury. The jury cannot "make their own laws" but the entire jury, if they believe a law is unjust, can make such a declaration. For example, it is supposedly illegal to photograph a rabbit in Wyoming between January and April without a permit. Since that is in conflict with other laws that permit anything in public view to be photographed I can easily see that law becoming a subject of jury nullification.

A little legal research tells me there is no such law in Wyoming. However at one time there was such a law that applied to all game and not just rabbits. It was passed in 1921. The law was not on the books in 1996, thus it was repealed sometime prior, but how much prior seems to be an unknown. No doubt I could ferret out the repeal date, but "No vale la pena" (not worth the bother). Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

[Winger Ed.]

Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

Very true.

In selecting a jury the attorneys really don't want anyone with a strong opinion about much of anything,
or anyone with a superior knowledge or experiences on subjects relating to the case at hand.

This is why insurance companies hate going to a jury trial as the defendant.
In the jury selection process,
its almost impossible to find twelve people who haven't been screwed by a insurance company.
Or ones that have, and aren't looking for the chance to give a little 'payback'.

They're looking for folks they can persuade or convince with their arguments during the trial.
It makes their job easier, and a biased juror could be grounds for a retrial or appeal.

[Petrol & Powder]

The Constitution guarantees a trial by jury. If you think jury duty is "onerous", ask yourself how you would feel if you were the accused and wanted that jury trial.

JB, as I pointed out earlier in post #52, you need not worry about serving on a jury. Char-Gar is absolutely correct that you need only to state your views and you will be excused.
Your answer to this question would be more than enough for a prosecutor OR defense attorney to strike you for cause during voir dire:

"Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is? "

David2011 - Juries decide facts not law. If jurors start thinking they can disregard the law they are no long upholding their oath.

[Char-Gar]

Very true.

In selecting a jury the attorneys really don't want anyone with a strong opinion about much of anything,
or anyone with a superior knowledge or experiences on subjects relating to the case at hand.

This is why insurance companies hate going to a jury trial as the defendant.
In the jury selection process,
its almost impossible to find twelve people who haven't been screwed by a insurance company.
Or ones that have, and aren't looking for the chance to give a little 'payback'.

They're looking for folks they can persuade or convince with their arguments during the trial.
It makes their job easier, and a biased juror could be grounds for a retrial or appeal.

Having selected both civil and criminal juries on both side of the bar, I can tell you with a high degree of certainity that lawyers do want intelligent jurors who can process complex evidence and arrive as a good decision based the evidence. No lawyer want a jury box full of dumbos or house plants.

What lawyers do not want is jurors that brings bias and predjice into the jury box with them. That is why they take an oath to render their decision based on the evidence they hear in the court room. Bias and prejudice (pre-judging) kill the American jury system.

Despite what you may read here or elsewhere on the Internet, it is possible to find 12 intellegent and honest jurors that will take their oath seriously and render a proper verdict based on the evidence and nothing else. Sometimes you have to go through allot of people in the jury pool to find them, but they are there. They are the backbone of our freedom and liberty and worthy of the respect and gratitude of the American people.

[JBinMN]

JB...I agree that you should not be forced to serve on a jury, but you won't be forced to do so. Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

Thanks for your civil & polite reply.

It is not that I am looking for a way to avoid jury duty, as I have said before. It is just that I try, as a "concerned citizen", to consider what is just or not when I make decisions. I expect that our elected legislators would do the same, as well as those in the judiciary, meaning in particular, prosecutors/Dist. Atty, et al..

Unfortunately, it seems that at the top of the system, there are certain legislators from States, all the way to those in the US Congress, who think it is just fine to propose & try to implement laws that are un constitutional at their core, and foregoing their own oath to not make laws that are unconstitutional since they swear to "uphold" the US Constitution. Then there are the prosecutors who then try to use such laws to prosecute persons not just to "uphold the law", but to accomplish some other agendas , such as self promotion as a success & as a stepping stone to other more influential( powerful) positions in the future. With that, there are also those prosecutors who will allow other laws to be prosecuted as a result of those unconstitutional laws until they are overthrown by a higher court, while in the meantime the ones accused & if found guilty of such laws still have to suffer until their cases are overturned.

Earlier I used the proposed Federal "Red Flag" laws ( Some states have already implemented them) as an example, and while it may not interest some, I am going to use that proposed legislation to provide an example of what I was trying to get folks to consider earleir to help demonstrate why I think the way I do.

If someone has their property confiscated( firearms) before they have committed a crime, then they are not given "Due Process" under the law as per the US Constitution & the 5th & 14th Amendments. That being the case, if then, while those confiscated firearms are in the possession of the authorities it is discovered that one of those firearms was used in a crime before the person the firearms became the owner of that firearm, the person who had the firearms confiscated could be charged with a crime related to that firearm, & prosecuted for it, even if they had not bee the one involved in any crime & were unaware of the firearms criminal use.

That type of thing would be wrong, in my thinking, and those who would use(prosecute) a law that was unconstitutional to further the prosecution of a law that "was" constitutional, would not be using fair & just practices to obtain a conviction. Basically using "illegal" means to prosecute.

So, even if the person was found to be innocent of the reason for their firearms being confiscated in the first place, the "punishment" of the confiscation illegally, then would result in a further infringement by making the accused person unwittingly be a "witness against themselves" as per the 5th amendment because of the illegal & unconstitutional confiscation in the first place.

This hypothetical can be switched around to any crime that becomes the "fruit of a poisonous tree", so it is not just about the Red Flag type laws, but any law that is put into place that is unconstitutional or the evidence is obtained thru such measures.

Anyone who is willing to be a part of an unjust prosecution, including the jurors, is not much a leap from "lynching" even if the punishment is not hanging. It would be acting as a part of a "kangaroo court", and justice would not be served in a fair manner if it was to be allowed.

OK, I will stop now & bow out & go do other things. I am just one who is quite zealous in my intention to try to make sure that folks are not ignorant of certain concepts that could have direct bearing on not only others, but on themselves if these situationsand potential laws are implemented.

IOW... it could happen to YOU to be on one side(jury) or the other(accused) in regard to such laws & it might behoove folks to be aware of some of the things that might concern themselves or others who they care about if these laws are put into effect.


I'm done now. Thanks for your patience.