There is no doubt in my mind that judges will try to influence the outcome of the jury even to the point of intimidation. Therefore, if a jury nullifies the law can they be punished for doing so by the judge?
– H. Lynn
No, they cannot. The judge will occasionally declare a mistrial, or issue empty threats about the jury failing to live up to their so-called oath, but there’s nothing the judge can do about a jury’s refusal to follow his instructions. Laura Kriho was the first juror to be charged with failing to bring in a guilty verdict since the William Penn trial in 1670, and her conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned on appeal. Judges are paper tigers.
Two words that argue against jury nullification: O.J. Simpson!
– William
Ah, yes, another deeply reasoned retort. This flimsy pretense of an argument does not so much shoot itself in the foot as directly in the head. The fact that O.J. is walking free despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him is proof that the jury had the power to judge both the facts as well as the application of the law. If they did not have that power, then the judge could have overridden them and declared O.J. guilty – since he did not, it is quite obvious that, as the Supreme Court wrote in 1995: “the jury decide guilt or innocence on every issue, which includes application of the law to the facts.”
Furthermore, the civil jury found O.J. liable. Do you trust judges to bat better than .500? Based on the number of laws attempting to limit judicial sentencing leeway, most legislatures don’t.
What a great article you wrote. I just graduated from law school, and never heard a word about jury nullification. After the bar exam, this is going to be one of the first things I research, as I want to go into criminal defense. Thanks for the heads up. Forgive me, but what does Geheimestaatspolizei mean?
– Andrew
I’m flabbergasted! What will we learn next, that education schools don’t teach educators how to teach kids to read? In any case, good luck with the bar, Andrew. GEheimeSTAatsPOlizei = gestapo. It means secret state police.
Just a quick note to let you know that our prayers have been answered. My husband will be coming home Tuesday. I am one of the lucky ones. We lost 12 friends in this war, one of whom was in our wedding. I am so thankful that God kept him safe.
– K.
Some of you may recall my letter to an Apache pilot. I’m happy to report that the pilot to whom it was written is safely home now.
Are you saying then that judges such as the Supreme Court should rule on cases with what their hearts tell them and not adhere strictly to the Constitution?
– George
No, because I was writing about the rights of the jury. Juries are not judges. Judges are not juries. Anyone who finds this to be a difficult distinction would do well to remain silent on the matter even if threatened with hot irons.
Any government, verdict or regime which is based upon, or overtly allows for nullification by illegal means – whether jury nullification, terrorism [or] secession – has lost its legitimate rule of law, if that law and government was based upon reason, choice and votes. That jury nullification happens does not legitimize its use any more than the fact that not all murderers are captured makes the law against murder void.
– LAB
It always puzzles me when people attempt to argue the law while ignoring what it says. According to this logic, the government of the United States has had an illegitimate rule of law from the very start, since jury nullification is not only legal, but is a right enshrined in the common law, defended by numerous Supreme Court decisions, championed by a variety of Founding Fathers and remains an integral part of the American rule of law.
With regard to secession, it was generally considered to be a right of the states until Abraham Lincoln ended the discussion by resorting to military force, which is not exactly the most persuasive demonstration of the rule of law at work.
As a lawyer who has been involved in both civil and criminal cases, I know that judges – especially federal judges – don’t give two hoots in hell about the law. But just because they do not care to follow their oaths does not excuse a juror from his duty. Surely, the answer to corruption and perjury is not more corruption and perjury.
– Corbett
Sigh … again, the juror’s duty is to “decide guilt or innocence on every issue, which includes application of the law to the facts.” Jury nullification is neither corruption nor perjury, indeed it is a defense against both. If the judge imposes an oath on jurors that contradicts this duty, then it is the judge and his oath that are in error.
First, I want to say thank you for your column. You are one of a very small number of journalists with whom I consistently agree. Second, I am curious as to your thoughts on the future tech industry. I work for a major computer manufacturer, and I have been growing more and more optimistic about the 2-5 year outlook for the industry
– Brad
I’m a little less optimistic. First, the tech industry is not the growth industry it was 20 years ago, simply because it’s impossible to grow a multi-billion dollar company at exponential rates. With regard to the specifics you mentioned, there are serious doubts with regard to Intel’s new Itanium, (a nickname like The Itanic is never a good sign), and the fact that screens are bigger and fast processors are cheaper doesn’t change the fact that you don’t need more speed for the vast majority of applications used by the overwhelming majority of users.
While I am intrigued by the promise of Linux and open source solutions – I run a dual-boot system on one of my machines – Linux may hurt the already slowing computer replacement cycle, since the main reason computers need to be replaced is to keep up with the inefficient resource pig that is Microsoft Windows. Once people don’t feel pressured into changing their operating system every two years, they’ll begin to realize that their applications run just fine on their current machines.
