When a judge overrules the jury

Fraggle Rocker said:
A judge will hold you in contempt of court for mentioning jury nullification in his courtroom. You're not allowed to speak of it or pass out written material on the courthouse premises.

I can see his point. He's there to ensure that the law is upheld and he can't do that if the jury is encouraged to deliberately ignore the law.
Click to expand...


-=-
Upholding the law includes being certain the jury is aware of that law & precludes deceiving them about it.
 
Nasor said:
Actually it strongly depends on who as a better case. If the prosecutor has a good case, he will usually want smart jurors who will understand that the evidence points to guilt. The defense will then want a stupid jury so that they can try to spin bullshit to try to get their client off despite the facts. If the prosecutor has a weak case, reverse. Either way, there's a good chance that one of the sides will want to kick off anyone who is unusually knowledgeable about anything relevant. If you’re a computer programmer, for example, your odds of ever ending up on a jury in a computer crime trial are close to zero, even though it would seem that the interests of justice would be best served by having someone who actually knows about computers on the jury.
Click to expand...


-=-
Yet it is supposed to be the prosecutor's job to prove guilt not the victim's job to prove his innocence.
 
Tiassa said:
I'm of the opinion that a defense attorney has a better shot at establishing reasonable doubt in more analytic minds.
Click to expand...
I've heard (although I can't remember where) that defendants who wave their rights to a jury trial and request a bench trial have a higher acquittal rate. Although presumably people are much more likely to do that if they know the prosecution has a bad case.
 
Nasor said:
I've heard (although I can't remember where) that defendants who wave their rights to a jury trial and request a bench trial have a higher acquittal rate. Although presumably people are much more likely to do that if they know the prosecution has a bad case.
Click to expand...

your right about that and there have been some really strange decisions come out of judge only trials like aquiting a man of rape because the women didnt scream loud enough.

The other reason for a judge case (and this is why they are alowed) is for cases where you couldnt GET an unbiased jury. Look at the second OJ simpson case, was he convicted on the facts or because the jury wanted to "get him"? Look at cases involving high profile sex offenders, do they really have a chance at being found not guilty even when they are?
 
Actually, jury nullification can apply only in criminal cases (as I understand it) and the case what brought this interesting statistics to my view was not a criminal case (and I didn't give a link by purpose, because it wasn't the case what was relevant but the practice).

Now it would be good to know the % of criminal and civil cases in the stats. Nevertheless the point was, that the jury had the right to come up with ANY verdict and the judge simply overruled them. There was no : "you can only find the accused guilty" warning or such...

Now if the jury can not come up with any verdict in the given legal frame and can be overruled that does undermine the system, I am sorry to say...
 
Pandaemoni said:
I think you will find if you search more that it *only* happens when a jury convicts and the judge finds, as a matter of law, that the evidence did not support the charge. It never has happened (to my knowledge) where a jury acquitted.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain that a judge can only overturn a conviction, not an acquittal. Just as a defendant can appeal a conviction, but the state cannot appeal an acquittal. It goes back to the issue of double jeopardy. You only have to be found not guilty once, and you're free.
Tiassa said:
How is it that juries recommend the death penalty more often for racial minorities than white people even if the crimes are similar?
Click to expand...
The usual explanation is that both Euro-Americans and Afro-Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that Afro-Americans are more likely to be violent criminals.
 
Syzygys said:
Actually, jury nullification can apply only in criminal cases ...
Click to expand...

True, sort of ...

Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
—John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States[4]
...
Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top