Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 3815564" data-attributes="member: 5122">Bah.  You selectively quoted Wikipedia.  From exactly the same article (and quoting authorities substantially more recent than Justice John Jay in 1794 ... ):"In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge's answer was upheld on appeal.In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).'We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.'In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that 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."I was, however, a little imprecise.  Jury nullification, per se, is not illegal.  (As Wikipedia says, it is a de facto power (but not a right).)  Perjury, however, is, and swearing an oath to make judgments according to the law, AFAIK, is under penalty of perjury.</blockquote>

Verification