Jury member dilemma

[jayh]

Since I'm not on a jury now, I can discuss this without it being 'jury tampering'.

While I've been in a jury pool twice in recent years, I have not been called to actually serve. However, some experiences by people I know have made me seriously think about what position I would take in their shoes.

In one case some years ago a police gambling raid netted 'betting slips' and they arrested a woman, the only person in the home at the time. As jury members they were told that was the only thing necessary to establish guilt, even though there was no proof she was actually actively gambling. They felt they had to vote to convict. In another case, police waited with busting a person for pot until he was travelling through a 'drug free school zone' (there was zero indication that this person had any involvement with providing drugs to kids, it was merely a legal dodge to up the crime) and enhanced the penalties substantially. This person, too, felt compelled to convict.

My problem is, in these and conceivably many other types of case, my conscience simply would not permit me to vote to convict even though by definition of jury duty I am bound to. I simply could not tolerate to have on my conscience the knowledge that my jury vote contributed to putting that person in prison. Nor could I conscientiously vote to convict someone for something that should not be a crime. My 'duty' as a jury member can be antithetical to my morality. (Is that contempt of court to vote my conscience?)

What do you think? What would you do?

[Cynic of Mammon]

As a Juryman, you are sworn only to follow the law, not your own conscience. (One could, for example, imagine the chaos if an anarchist voted by conscience). You judge according to the law, not your own moral compass (theoretically at least)

Personally, if I disagreed that strongly with the laws of my country, I would feel it legitimate to refuse jury duty.

[Pavlov's Dog]

If you are a juror you can vote your conscious. Dilemma solved.

[JamesBannon]

I'm surprised that the jury were directed to convict especially in the first case. If that's all the evidence the prosecution had then a "not guilty" verdict should have been delivered as there was no corroboration.

[jayh]

I'm surprised that the jury were directed to convict especially in the first case. If that's all the evidence the prosecution had then a "not guilty" verdict should have been delivered as there was no corroboration.

I don't know the details. Perhaps it was 'posession of gambling paraphenalia' or something. (not that the state has any busines arresting people for what they choose to do with their money)

[jayh]

I was googling and found this:

http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=31

any comments?

[Stu]

Meet my good friend jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Nullification). Juries are supposed to be the last line of defense against unjust laws.

[Loren Pechtel]

Meet my good friend jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Nullification). Juries are supposed to be the last line of defense against unjust laws.

Exactly. The government would have you believe that nullification is wrong but it is an important safeguard.

[thoughtful]

The judge will ask you about this. Just tell the judge what you told us and you won't have to worry about serving as a jurror. You're not the only person who feels the way you do. Honest people who feel the way you do are regularly excused from jury duty service and sent home by the judge when they reach a courtroom as potential jurrors.

[atonal chaotic]

The judge will ask you about this. Just tell the judge what you told us and you won't have to worry about serving as a jurror. You're not the only person who feels the way you do. Honest people who feel the way you do are regularly excused from jury duty service and sent home by the judge when they reach a courtroom as potential jurrors.This is the state trying to protect itself from jury nullification. Myself, if I'm ever called to jury duty, and they inquire about jury nullification directly or indiretly, I will deny any knowledge of it (let them eliminate me from the pool for legitimate reasons if they have them), then I will practice it if warranted.

As a Juryman, you are sworn only to follow the law, not your own conscience. (One could, for example, imagine the chaos if an anarchist voted by conscience). You judge according to the law, not your own moral compass (theoretically at least)

Personally, if I disagreed that strongly with the laws of my country, I would feel it legitimate to refuse jury duty.No. It's the judge who is bound to the law rather than conscience. The king's agents are more than sufficient to determine the violation of the king's laws. The purpose of the jury, since the Magna Carta, is to ensure that the king's law is just.

Both freedom of religion and freedom of the press owe part of their legal precedence to 18th century cases where juries refused to convict even though the accused had in fact violated the law by preaching Quaker doctrine and publishing true uncomplimentary stories about the governor respectively.

If you, the juror, do not believe punishment would be just, then you have the right and duty to acquit. Furthermore, jurors cannot be punished or even questioned by the state over a vote of "not guilty."

[Bomb#20]

http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=31
any comments?
FIJA is a motherload of useful information.

As far as what you are or aren't legally required to do goes, it's pretty simple: Pavlov's Dog is correct -- you can vote your conscience. Dilemma solved. Cynic of Mammon is also correct -- you're sworn to follow the law, not your own conscience. This isn't necessarily as constraining as it sounds, though. First, because it's up to you to decide what the law is. And second, because the reason you take the oath is that the government wants to put somebody on trial based on its opinion of what the law is, so it tries to pack the jury with people willing to follow orders, by excluding from the jury anybody who won't take the oath. So you'll be in the position of having an obligation to your rulers to keep the promise they exacted from you, and also having an obligation to your fellow citizens to protect them from injustice. 95% of the time there's no dilemma -- your two obligations won't conflict. But in the event that you find yourself in the position of having to choose, it's still pretty simple -- you just choose. You betray the people who set you up to face the dilemma, or you betray the guy they're trying to railroad. Your option.

But make no mistake -- our rulers have made it very clear which way they want you to choose. You'll take an oath. The witnesses will take an oath. The judge will not take an oath. You'll be instructed to accept that the law is what the judge says, but the judge will not promise to tell you the truth. It's perfectly legal for judges to lie to juries. In some jurisdictions it's compulsory for them to. There's case-law on this. It's one way our court system implements its policy of juries deciding fact and judges deciding law. Judges can't prohibit jurors from deciding the law, because legislatures haven't passed any law against this; so instead judges manipulate jurors into choosing for themselves not to decide what the law is and instead to take judges' word for it. They really, really want you to follow orders. So in the event that you choose not to follow orders, they're likely to be pretty steamed at you about it. There isn't a lot they can legally do to punish you for thinking for yourself, but that's no guarantee that they won't try. Laura Kriho was prosecuted for it, denied her right to a jury trial, convicted, sentenced, and had serious legal problems until her conviction was overturned by an appeals court, on a technicality.

Of course, Kriho got herself into trouble, by not playing her cards close to her chest. When she was the lone holdout against conviction, she argued in the jury room against the law itself, and told the other jurors about their right to judge the law, and one of the other jurors ratted her out to the judge. If she'd simply insisted against all argument that she wasn't convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, she'd have been fine.

To guard against that sort of free-thinking juror, judges have an additional way to make sure only judges decide what the law is: they can lie to the jury about the facts of the case. Charles Breyer tricked a federal jury into thinking they were trying a regular drug dealer, and carefully prevented the defense from letting the jury know Ed Rosenthal was distributing medical marijuana and following state law in the process. He knew if the jury knew the truth they'd nullify the law, so he made sure the truth didn't come out in court. After they convicted the guy and were allowed to communicate with the outside world about what they'd done, they were mortified.

(Disclaimer: None of this is legal advice. I am not a lawyer. When I say it's up to you to decide what the law is, I'm taking other people's word for what the law is."The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." -- John Jay (Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, 1789)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence." -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969)

[Christina Mirabilis]

I wouldn't disagree with anything Bomb just said, but I think it's unlikely that you'll even get picked to be on the jury if you admit how you feel. I've been called for jury duty at least 10 times and I've never made it past the questions of the District Attorney. The minute an answer showed some sign of independent thinking, out I went.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Judges and lawyers take oathes. Judges and lawyers are not allowed to lie to the juries.

[verv2]

I wouldn't disagree with anything Bomb just said, but I think it's unlikely that you'll even get picked to be on the jury if you admit how you feel. I've been called for jury duty at least 10 times and I've never made it past the questions of the District Attorney. The minute an answer showed some sign of independent thinking, out I went.

so much for a jury of our peers, huh?
I've heard the same thing many times....it's sad, very sad.

[Christina Mirabilis]

I assume that some people do it out of a sense of civic duty, but I have heard people say any number of times that their peers aren't 'a bunch of people too stupid to know how to get out of jury duty'.

I generally wouldn't mind doing it if they would quit rejecting me, but telling them that you don't believe in the american system of government is usually enough to get you rejected too. Ditto on showing extreme affection or disrespect for the cops. One side or the other will get you knocked off.

[Bomb#20]

The judge will not take an oath. ...
It's perfectly legal for judges to lie to juries.Judges and lawyers take oathes.
Certainly. This doesn't conflict with what I said. The judge took an oath, back when s/he became a judge, before the jury was called. So the jurors generally don't know what the judge did or didn't promise to do. Have you ever seen a judge take an oath in front of a jury to truthfully tell them the law?

Judges and lawyers are not allowed to lie to the juries.
How do you figure that? You're the one who said if you are a juror you can vote your conscience. I quoted a Supreme Court justice who backed you up. And yet our courts are mostly manned by judges who tell jurors they have to apply the law as given to them by the judge. How is that not lying to the jury?

In response to a question from a jury, one federal trial judge told them:"There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. Your obligation is to follow the instructions of the Court as to the law given to you. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case."
That was a lie. Jurors are not violating the law when they reject the judge's version of what the law is. In U.S. v. Krzyske (1988), the majority of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the instruction was proper, and upheld the conviction. So they allowed the trial judge to lie to the jury.

According to Deputy Attorney General Karl S. Mayer, since the 2001 California S.C. decision in People v. Williams,"A new jury instruction requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law."But jury deliberations are privileged. That's why Ms. Kriho's conviction was overturned. So if there is in fact a law requiring jurors to rat out their fellows, which law is that? Conversely, if there is no such law, then California judges are no longer merely allowed to lie to jurors about what jurors have to do. They're now ordered to lie, by their superiors.

So much for lying about the law. As for the facts, if judges aren't allowed to lie to juries about those, what punishment was meted out to Judge Breyer for the scam he pulled on the Rosenthal jury?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Certainly. This doesn't conflict with what I said. The judge took an oath, back when s/he became a judge, before the jury was called.
Yes that is what I am saying. You are making it like the judge is free from any type of ethical constraints because they don't take an oath in front of the jury.

How do you figure that? You're the one who said if you are a juror you can vote your conscience. I quoted a Supreme Court justice who backed you up. And yet our courts are mostly manned by judges who tell jurors they have to apply the law as given to them by the judge. How is that not lying to the jury?

Because jury nullification is black and white. The judge's are not lying when they give the instructions. Those judges have an honest belief that the juror's should follow the letter of the law. That is not lying.

In response to a question from a jury, one federal trial judge told them:"There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. Your obligation is to follow the instructions of the Court as to the law given to you. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case."

Again that is not a lie, if the judge believes that there is no such thing as a valid jury nullification.

That was a lie. Jurors are not violating the law when they reject the judge's version of what the law is. In U.S. v. Krzyske (1988), the majority of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the instruction was proper, and upheld the conviction. So they allowed the trial judge to lie to the jury.

If they upheld the instruction, then it wasn't a lie.

So much for lying about the law. As for the facts, if judges aren't allowed to lie to juries about those, what punishment was meted out to Judge Breyer for the scam he pulled on the Rosenthal jury?

What lie was told? Not telling the jury about jury nullification is not a lie. If that judge believed that his instructions it is not a lie. I disagree with the judge, but it does not make him a liar.

[Bomb#20]

The judge took an oath, back when s/he became a judge, before the jury was called.
Yes that is what I am saying.
And you were making it like it contradicted what I said. I said the judge will not take an oath. An oath in the past is not an oath in the future.

You are making it like the judge is free from any type of ethical constraints because they don't take an oath in front of the jury.
No, I am making it like the jury cannot depend on the judge being bound by an ethical constraint to tell them the truth, because they don't know whether that's something the judge promised to do. The judge is of course bound by all sorts of ethical constraints. He is, for instance, constrained by professional ethics from informing the jury of their right to nullify.

our courts are mostly manned by judges who tell jurors they have to apply the law as given to them by the judge. How is that not lying to the jury?
Because jury nullification is black and white. The judge's are not lying when they give the instructions. Those judges have an honest belief that the juror's should follow the letter of the law. That is not lying.
Where did "should" come into it? "You should follow the letter of the law" would not be lying. That would be an honest opinion. "You have to follow the letter of the law", spoken by somebody who knows only too well that they don't have to, is a lie.

Knowing the law is judges' business. It is not plausible that all those judges are unaware of the fact that Congress has not passed a law requiring jurors not to nullify. Judges by and large are extremely hostile to jury nullification, and if there were such a law it would be their chief tool for preventing it. So they can't help but be painfully aware of their lack of that tool.

In response to a question from a jury, one federal trial judge told them:"There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. Your obligation is to follow the instructions of the Court as to the law given to you. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case."
Again that is not a lie, if the judge believes that there is no such thing as a valid jury nullification.
I take it you're against murder and therefore think the Ten Commandments are just peachy?

The judge made four claims to the jury: (1) "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.", (2) "Your obligation is to follow the instructions of the Court as to the law given to you.", (3) "You would violate your oath if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case.", and (4) "You would violate the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case.".

If the judge sincerely believes that there is no such thing as a valid jury nullification then claim (1) is not a lie. That is not grounds for saying he did not lie to the jury. Claims (1) and (2) are matters about which opinion varies widely. Claim (3) was the plain truth. Claim (4) was a lie. There is no law the jurors would be violating; and the judge has to have known that.

That was a lie. Jurors are not violating the law when they reject the judge's version of what the law is. In U.S. v. Krzyske (1988), the majority of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the instruction was proper, and upheld the conviction. So they allowed the trial judge to lie to the jury.
If they upheld the instruction, then it wasn't a lie.
Huh. I'm at a loss as to how you make that inference. It sounds no different from "If the Ministry of Truth says we've always been allied with Eastasia, then we have."

So much for lying about the law. As for the facts, if judges aren't allowed to lie to juries about those, what punishment was meted out to Judge Breyer for the scam he pulled on the Rosenthal jury?
What lie was told? Not telling the jury about jury nullification is not a lie. If that judge believed that his instructions it is not a lie. I disagree with the judge, but it does not make him a liar.
Jury nullification never came up. As I said, Breyer manipulated the jury into not wanting to nullify, by deliberately deceiving them about the facts of the case. Rosenthal was employed by the city government of Oakland to carry out the city's medical marijuana program for patients with doctors' recommendations, in accordance with the law of California. Breyer concealed this fact from the jury, and tricked them into thinking the man on trial was an ordinary street dealer selling pot for personal profit to people who just wanted to get high.

This was purely a federal vs. state power-play -- Breyer was using the jury, and Rosenthal, as a way to put California in its place. His point made, a conviction in his hand, he sentenced Rosenthal to one day in jail, and released him immediately as this was less than time served.

[Beleth]

As the foreman of a murder trial in 1999, let me say that there is a lot that gets covered in intricate cases like the two mentioned in the OP that simply can't be summarized in a paragraph. Even something as obviously nonsensical as the driving-through-a-school-zone case probably had some rather sensible reasons behind it.

I can't speak to those cases directly, but I know that the closer you scrutinize something, the more facts come out, and the more likely one's gut opinion will be changed by those facts. That happens a lot in trials. That's what's supposed to happen, after all, and why they can take so long.

[jayh]

As the foreman of a murder trial in 1999, let me say that there is a lot that gets covered in intricate cases like the two mentioned in the OP that simply can't be summarized in a paragraph. Even something as obviously nonsensical as the driving-through-a-school-zone case probably had some rather sensible reasons behind it.

I can't speak to those cases directly, but I know that the closer you scrutinize something, the more facts come out, and the more likely one's gut opinion will be changed by those facts. That happens a lot in trials. That's what's supposed to happen, after all, and why they can take so long.


It's also not uncommon for a prosecutor to pile on multiple charges to pressure a guilty plea.

According to this person, the ONLY significance in the case was upping the charge.