Jury Duty

[ThirdWizard]

I got a jury duty summons once. It was my sophmore year of university and it was during my spring break! I told them I had a lot of homework to do and got out of it. The nerve of them!

 

[WayneLigon]

I've been called twice, was selected once. The first time I read until lunch time, at which point they dismissed us as all trials for that day were full up. We were told to call a number and check in for the next couple of days. My number was never called so I didn't even have to go down to the courthouse on those days.

The second time, they called me twice. Once for a murder trial that I didn't get selected for; I forget the questions, if any, they asked. The second (which I got on) was a medical malpractice + improper behavior case. They asked all the jurors if they had ever had a lawsuit against a doctor and also asked if they felt their family doctor was competant. I answered no, and yes - I thought that yes to the second question would disqualify me but to my surprise it did not.

We sat for a day and a half listening to evidence and arguements, then got instructions from the judge and went to make our decision. We argued and argued and reviewed but we still hung each time. We sent the notice to the judge and she told us to take more time. we came back the next day and we continued to hang - a couple votes would change from time to time but for every person that became convinced one way it seems another person would also change their mind to the other side. We hung again and she finally accepted that decision.

That was like five years ago, I think, and I have not been called since. I wish I would, since it was a fascinating experience.

 

[JPL]

I asked him if we could suggest that he sue his defense attorney... The bailiff almost lost it but said no pretty emphatically.

We waited about 5 minutes, knocked again, came out and gave the verdict.

That sort of argument --- arguing that the jury should act contrary to the law --- is called "jury nullification," and in my jurisdiction, at least, it's a great way to get your license suspended. You can't be blatant about it.

I used to be an assistant PD, and I had several clients insist that I take a case to trial and use a jury nullification strategy [one even asked for it by name]. Many times a defense attorney, especially a PD [since they are free], will have a client insist on a jury trial even when the case is a sure-fire loser, convinced that the jury will be so stunned by what a mean cop that was, or what a good guy the defendant is, or how ___ really had it coming, that they will acquit.

 

[tarchon]

You mean it's a peculiarity of the American justice system?

As for not being what juries are "instructed" to do, duh, anything that could get a law off the books is bad for government power--why would jurors be told they could do it?

No, I mean it's a peculiarity of the English justice system that has been inherited by most of the former colonies, US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc., along the the general framework of English Common Law. Most countries (republics and otherwise) tend to use tribunal systems, where judges make most of the decisions, though jury systems have been tried out here and there, and a few non-Common-Law countries have adopted forms of it.

Jury nullification doesn't "take a law off the books." If a jury chooses to ignore the law (for good or bad reasons), it applies only to that particular case. It's not precedent and makes not the slightest bit of difference in any other case. In fact in some cases a jury that fails to follow instructions (and I don't know why you quoted "instructed" because that's exactly the terminology used) is grounds for appeal and even the judge himself can sometimes reverse such a verdict. Jury nullification is mostly only irrevocable in criminal cases because of the prohibition of double jeopardy under the US constitution.

It does create a check on government power, but it's a very limited case-by-case check, and it's only become a significant force in a few instances where there was widespread sentiment as to the unjustness of particular laws, for instance with fugitive-slave law cases tried in the North before the US Civil War.

 

[JPL]

It does create a check on government power, but it's a very limited case-by-case check, and it's only become a significant force in a few instances where there was widespread sentiment as to the unjustness of particular laws, for instance with fugitive-slave law cases tried in the North before the US Civil War.

Unfortunately, I think that historically jury nullification frequently has been used the other way around --- a black man "who doesn't know his place" gets beaten or killed, the white guys who did it are tried, and a prejudiced jury decides to ignore the law and "do the right thing" instead and lets the vigilantes go unpunished. Doesn't happen as much anymore, thankfully.

 

[tarchon]

Unfortunately, I think that historically jury nullification frequently has been used the other way around --- a black man "who doesn't know his place" gets beaten or killed, the white guys who did it are tried, and a prejudiced jury decides to ignore the law and "do the right thing" instead and lets the vigilantes go unpunished. Doesn't happen as much anymore, thankfully.

Yeah, that's the big problem with it. Power to the people is only as benevolent as the people. At least when the legislature makes a law, it's out there for all to see. The merit of having a bunch of random guys off the street deciding what's just in a secret debate is questionable.