The Law Jury Nullification.

Remove this Banner Ad

A jury, not necessarily a juror. An isolated juror is likely to be the subject of a discharge or will be rendered irrelevant by a majority verdict. It would be a rare situation indeed that you would have an entire jury decide to take that course.


The closest I have ever seen has been a strong sex pen case which had a hung jury several times before being nolled. I suspect there were a few who refused to return a guilty verdict because it was a boyfriend/girlfriend case with a small age gap (18-year-old and 15-year-old, IIRC), which was only reported out of vengeance because they broke up. I believe that was one of the factors for a fairly recent Director's Policy to not prosecute such cases, and that is a common sense approach which should have been in place earlier.


And given some of the absolute nonsense judgments that have come from the Vic CoA, I'd take anything from them with a pinch of salt.
 
Donners said:
A jury, not necessarily a juror. An isolated juror is likely to be the subject of a discharge or will be rendered irrelevant by a majority verdict. It would be a rare situation indeed that you would have an entire jury decide to take that course.


The closest I have ever seen has been a strong sex pen case which had a hung jury several times before being nolled. I suspect there were a few who refused to return a guilty verdict because it was a boyfriend/girlfriend case with a small age gap (18-year-old and 15-year-old, IIRC), which was only reported out of vengeance because they broke up. I believe that was one of the factors for a fairly recent Director's Policy to not prosecute such cases, and that is a common sense approach which should have been in place earlier.

And given some of the absolute nonsense judgments that have come from the Vic CoA, I'd take anything from them with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

A verdict that is not unanimous due to a juror exercising the right to jury nullification is a not guilty verdict delivered by a jury.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Caesar said:
Throwaway obiter from a state justice notwithstanding, there is no recognised right to jury nullification in Australia.
Click to expand...


There's no recognized denial of it either.
 
Old Skool said:
A verdict that is not unanimous due to a juror exercising the right to jury nullification is a not guilty verdict delivered by a jury.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If they are an isolated juror, then the verdict delivered by the jury is guilty by majority. That juror's position is the merest footnote, barely worthy of mention, and their motivations are not revealed. Their impact is irrelevant.
 
This depends on the charge at hand.
 
Caesar said:
Legal rights don't exist until they're recognised.

Best way to currently describe it is a legal byproduct.
Click to expand...

This is a good description.
 
Donners said:
A person can rack up plenty more convictions than that without it being appropriate for them to spend a day in gaol.
Click to expand...

I would disagree but even if so then surely the CPS is wasting everyone's time though plenty of lawyers no doubt get their clip on the way through.
 
medusala said:
I would disagree but even if so then surely the CPS is wasting everyone's time though plenty of lawyers no doubt get their clip on the way through.
Click to expand...

Not particularly, if it's anything like here. OPP and Legal Aid solicitors get paid stuff-all and while their barristers get a decent amount by community standards, it's far less than their counterparts in other areas of law.

You will also find a person can get plenty of convictions for relatively minor offending from one linked series of incidents, so a high number of convictions may not represent a particularly large number of incidents or, more particularly, court appearances. The number of court appearances is far more significant than raw convictions, because the former is a greater indicator of the success or failure of rehabilitation.

If a person has factors in their life that can be dealt with through treatment, non-custodial sentences with treatment conditions are far more appropriate not not a waste of anyone's time. Imprisonment is always a last resort.
 
Donners said:
Not particularly. OPP and Legal Aid solicitors get paid stuff-all and while their barristers get a decent amount by community standards, it's far less than their counterparts in other areas of law.

You will also find a person can get plenty of convictions for relatively minor offending from one linked series of incidents, so a high number of convictions may not represent a particularly large number of incidents or, more particularly, court appearances. The number of court appearances is far more significant than raw convictions, because the former is a greater indicator of the success or failure of rehabilitation.

If a person has factors in their life that can be dealt with through treatment, non-custodial sentences with treatment conditions are far more appropriate. Imprisonment is always a last resort.
Click to expand...

Is it really the case, with the rising prevalence of the concepts of "general and specific deterrence" combined with the overt politicisation of crime?
 
Old Skool said:
Is it really the case, with the rising prevalence of the concepts of "general and specific deterrence" combined with the overt politicisation of crime?
Click to expand...

Specific deterrence is easily moderated. Verdins is a cliche these days, and even where it doesn't apply, little weight is given to this aspect unless there is a substantial risk of re-offending, often after repeated failures to be rehabilitated through non-custodial sentences.

General deterrence is not given substantially more weight now than in the past. Indeed, it is very hard to increase standard sentences, with the CoA clinging to 'current sentencing practices', even though the sentences for some injury and sex offences are arguably quite low. The impact of the changes to suspended sentences has been minimal in my opinion, though obviously it will take time to assess.

For all the media hype and political rhetoric, the actual impact is not significant. The sentencing matrix is complex and populist commentary, as opposed to recognition of a genuine need for community protection, has little weight.
 
Prosecutor Defeated by Glaring Stupidity of Pot Laws


I had a jury trial this morning on level 3 possession with intent MJ, level 4 possession drug paraphernalia and level 10 no drug tax stamp. During voir dire, my almost all white, middle-class, middle-aged jury went into full rebellion against the prosecutor stating that they wouldn't convict even if the client's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- almost all of them! They felt marijuana should be legalized, what he does with it is his own business and that the jails are already full of people for this silly charge. Then, when the potential jurors found out that the State wanted him to pay taxes on illegal drugs, they went nuts. One woman from the back said how stupid this was and why are we even here wasting our time. A "suit" from the front said this was the most ridiculous thing he'd ever heard. The prosecutor ended up dismissing the case. Judge gave me a dismissal with prejudice. I'm still laughing my ass off over this one. I have NEVER seen a full on mutiny by an entire jury pool before. Easiest win ever!

http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/14/kansas-prosecutor-defeated-by-glaring-st
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Donners said:
General deterrence is not given substantially more weight now than in the past.
Click to expand...

I wonder how the concept of general deterrence would stand up to a high court challenge?

I can't find any evidence of any challenge to the concept and it certainly has its critics.
 
Hard_to_Beat said:
I wonder how the concept of general deterrence would stand up to a high court challenge?

I can't find any evidence of any challenge to the concept and it certainly has its critics.
Click to expand...

The principle has been raised in the High Court (in terms of its application in particular facts, not a challenge to the concept as a whole) and has not attracted any significant comment.


You may find this article of some interest:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/MULR/2000/5.html
 
Jurors Convict Man for Telling Jurors About Jury Nullification

Handing out pamphlets gets treated as a crime.

Scott Shackford

|Jun. 2, 2017 12:15 pm

Jurors in Mecosta County, Michigan, have convicted a man for telling potential jurors that they don't have to convict people.

In 2015, Keith Wood stood outside a district courthouse in Big Rapids handing out pamphlets to passers-by. The literature explained the concept of jury nullification—the idea that jurors have the right to refuse to convict people of breaking laws they believe are unjust. Wood and his lawyer contend that distributing these pamphlets is protected free speech.

Prosecutors disagreed. Wood was convicted Thursday of attempting to influence a jury, a misdemeanor charge that could lead to a sentence of up to a year in jail.

The court was selecting only one jury that day, for the trial of an Amish man charged with draining wetlands on his property. And that man decided to plead guilty, so no jury was seated anyway. But prosecutors argued that the very nature of such fliers taints a jury pool. As Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Nathan Hull told the jury, "This pamphlet from beginning to end is designed to benefit a criminal defendant."

Let that argument soak in for just a moment. Here's the kind of information that Hull worries will "benefit" the people he's trying to prosecute:

Did judges fully inform jurors of their rights in the past?

Yes, it was normal procedure in the early days of our nation, and in colonial times. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney often would. America's founders realized that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

John Adams, our second president had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Sadly, the jury took less than an hour of deliberation to convict Wood. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. The judge apparently prevented Wood's lawyer from offering any sort of First Amendment–based defenses. Because of the judge's behavior, Wood's jury received only limited information—a practice, interestingly enough, that the nullification pamphlet warns about. If only somebody been handing them out when they were seating Wood's jury. Wood's lawyer says they'll appeal the verdict.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/jurors-convict-man-for-telling-jurors-ab
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top