Trial by Jury

[CBL4]

According to instruction given by US judges, the jury is only responsible for determing the guilt or innocent of the defendant according to the law. The jury is not supposed to consider whether the law is constitutional or just. The jury is also not supposed to be involved in or consider the sentencing aspect of the law. (Except in death penalty cases.)

It seems to me that one of the most important aspect of a trial is the constitutionality of the law. If the trial is "by jury" why cannot they reject a guilty sentence for what they believe is an unconstitutional law? Ditto for sentencing and justness.

If the trial is "by jury," it seems that the jury should be able to consider all aspect of the trial. Why are certain aspects of trials reserved for judges?

Is there some history to the phrase "trial by jury" that negates my thoughts?

CBL

 

[Mycroft]

It seems to me that one of the most important aspect of a trial is the constitutionality of the law. If the trial is "by jury" why cannot they reject a guilty sentence for what they believe is an unconstitutional law? Ditto for sentencing and justness.

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me our process already has many places where the constitutionality of a law can be tested. Putting that on jurries is both unnecessary and cumbersome.

I addition, jurries are not legal experts, and a lay-persons understanding of "constitutional" could have more to do with emotional feelings of what "seems right" rather than rule of law.

 

[Bikewer]

Quite right. The Supreme Court, final arbiters of constitutionality, frequently can't come to a strong majority opinion on these matters.
Asking untrained jurors to take this into account is a bit much.

One thing that results in problems are those not-too-infrequent cases where a defendant who has been legally convicted of a crime is found to be innocent, perhaps by DNA evidence or the confession of the actual perpetrator.

In many cases, states are loathe to remove the criminal record of such individuals, on the grounds that they were "legally tried and convicted". In some cases, a great deal of legal manuevering is required to even secure the defendant's release!

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me our process already has many places where the constitutionality of a law can be tested. Putting that on jurries is both unnecessary and cumbersome.

It's not an issue of "putting that on" juries. The role of the jury is to decide whether the defendant has broken the law. Part of that involves figuring out what the law is. "Determing the guilt or innocent of the defendant according to the law" is inseparable from interpreting the law, of which the constitution is part.

I addition, jurries are not legal experts, and a lay-persons understanding of "constitutional" could have more to do with emotional feelings of what "seems right" rather than rule of law.

The same can be said of "guilty".

Let's start somewhere I think most people would agree with me: suppose you're on a jury. You're told that the defendant is charged with buying a chicken without a license. Over the course of the trial, you become convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant did in fact buy a chicken without a license. However, you've never heard of a law requiring a chicken-buying license, so you ask for a copy of the relevant law. The judge tells you that your job is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of buying a chicken without a license, not to figure out whether buying a chicken without a license is in fact illegal. He (the judge) has already determined that it is indeed illegal, and there is therefore no reason for you to inquire further. How would you vote? If you answer "guilty", I don't think you have any business serving on a jury.

 

[Tmy]

Oh geez, next you'll want juries ruling on hearsay and evidence questions. "guilty or not" is already a tough enough job.

 

[ceo_esq]

This isn't an answer to your question, CBL4, but if you're interested in such matters I highly recommend that you read We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy by Jeffrey Abramson, which I understand has recently come back into print. I consider it to be one of the best books on the American judicial system ever published for a general readership. (Don't confuse it with a similarly-titled book by Godfrey D. Lehman, which I haven't read.)

The historical dimension of your question is discussed in great detail in Abramson's book.

 

[Skeptic]

Why are certain aspects of trials reserved for judges?

Because then we no longer have equality before the law, but the rule of the mob: sympathetic, or rich, or popular, or defendants (especially those whose victims are "nobodies") would get a "pass" by a jury, while those who are not so would recieve the full brunt of the law's wrath.

This was the case, for instance, in the old South: in effect, white defendants could expect automatic acquittal in a trial for crimes against black victims--if they were brought to trial at all--since the white jury would inevitably decide that the law should not apply in such a case.

 

[Brown]

According to instruction given by US judges, the jury is only responsible for determing the guilt or innocent of the defendant according to the law. The jury is not supposed to consider whether the law is constitutional or just.

If there is a question of constitutionality of the criminal law, the defendant presents that argument to the judge, not to the jury. If the judge agrees that the law is unconstitutional, then the case does not go the jury at all.

If, on the other hand, the judge determines that the law is constitutional, then the jury is not given license to second-guess the judge's decision on this point. Juries have neither the education nor the experience to rule on questions of constitutional law. That is not a criticism of juries; it is merely a reflection of reality. When a judge rules on a serious constitutional question, there are typically hours of research that are required, involving the reading of several previous decisions. There is also an analysis in which the judge determines whether the previous decisions are similar or dissimilar to the case before the bench.

Juries do none of the research or the analysis. And juries are never asked to rule upon the constitutionality of a law.

Most juries do, however, have a sense of fairness. If they feel that the defendant is being accused unfairly, they will try to make their displeasure known. (These expressions of displeasure are NOT the equivalent of so-called "jury nullification," which is the notion that the jury can strike down or disregard laws it feels are unconstitutional or unfair.)

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

Most juries do, however, have a sense of fairness. If they feel that the defendant is being accused unfairly, they will try to make their displeasure known. (These expressions of displeasure are NOT the equivalent of so-called "jury nullification," which is the notion that the jury can strike down or disregard laws it feels are unconstitutional or unfair.)

It should be noted that there is, at least in the United States, a certain groundswell of support for exactly this notion of "jury nullification." (See, for example the American Jury Institute, or just type "jury nullification" into your favorite search engine.)

In practical terms, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to get a jury acquittal reversed; if the jury insisted on deciding, in the teeth of the judge's instructions, that they were empowered to judge the vallidity of the law and to acquit on that basis, that would essentially end the matter right there.

Case law is a little bit more ambivalent on the matter. There is well-established precedent that the jury holds the power/right to acquit, but the court has no duty to support that right or to inform the jury of that right, and in fact, any juror who indicates a willingness to exercise jury nullification can be eliminated from the jury pool on that basis. (A useful thing to know if you want to get out of jury duty, esp. if you indicate that you intend to nullify any and all drug-related charges.)

 

[Tony]

The constitution belongs to the people. The power of jury nullification is a natural and desired byproduct of the trial by jury. If you ditch jury nullification, you might as well ditch the concept of a trial by jury and leave the decision to the judge (or a jury of robots).

 

[Skeptic]

The constitution belongs to the people. The power of jury nullification is a natural and desired byproduct of the trial by jury. If you ditch jury nullification, you might as well ditch the concept of a trial by jury and leave the decision to the judge (or a jury of robots).

Well, no, because the juries get to determine the FACTS of the case: whether or not X really did shoot Y or not.

 

[Tony]

Well, no, because the juries get to determine the FACTS of the case: whether or not X really did shoot Y or not.

Yes and I can see many ways a jury, based on the facts, can decide to nullify even if the defendant is indeed in violation of what the prosecution says is the law.

 

[drkitten]

Yes and I can see many ways a jury, based on the facts, can decide to nullify even if the defendant is indeed in violation of what the prosecution says is the law.

Strawman alert.

The prosecution isn't the one that gets to say what the law is. The judge is the one who makes that determination.

 

[Tony]

Strawman alert.

What? I didn't twist his argument.

The prosecution isn't the one that gets to say what the law is. The judge is the one who makes that determination.

Well damn let me rephrase.

Yes and I can see many ways a jury, based on the facts, can decide to nullify even if the defendant is indeed in violation of what the judge and prosecution say is the law.

Feel better?

 

[CBL4]

So what I am hearing is that in some cases the jury does nullify the law. We have a system where either the jury does not consider the legality of the law or does it in a complete vacuum. It seems to me that it is more sensible to codify it and let lawyers present evidence.

Our constitution is a very short document and many of the signers were not lawyers. I do not see why a jury is not competent to make a judgement on it.

CBL

 

[Suddenly]

So what I am hearing is that in some cases the jury does nullify the law. We have a system where either the jury does not consider the legality of the law or does it in a complete vacuum. It seems to me that it is more sensible to codify it and let lawyers present evidence.

Our constitution is a very short document and many of the signers were not lawyers. I do not see why a jury is not competent to make a judgement on it.

CBL

A good way to state it is that a jury has the power to nullify but not the right.

The right to a jury trial means that a person can only be convited by a jury, no matter how clear the evidence may seem.

Meanwhile, the prohibition against double jeopardy forbids the state from retrying a case if there is an acquittal.

Any laws sanctioning a jury for accquitting an "obviuously guilty" defendant would run afoul of the right to jury trial above as it would tend to prejudice a jury towards playing it safe and convicting...

So, the practical effect is that a jury can accquit anyone for any reason. This isn't a particular right, rather just a byproduct of these other rights held by the defendant.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A jury really isn't qualified as while the document itself is short and simple, it is also very general. Much of our system draws from the fact that we interpret as we go, and absent a really good reason once we select an interpretation we stick with it so that we can have some sense of uniformity in our legal system.

Just setting a jury loose with a copy of the thing and then allowing two lawyers to open a huge can of BS about what it really means is in a practical sense equal to flipping a coin.... It makes the case even more about a lawyers ability to sell land to the jury and less about the real facts. Sounds like fun to me, but seems at odds with what we would want as a justice system...

 

[Iamme]

If the trial is "by jury," it seems that the jury should be able to consider all aspect of the trial. Why are certain aspects of trials reserved for judges?

CBL

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And, isnt' it true that judges can throw out the decision handed down by the jury? Whats *that* all about?

 

[Garrette]

I think, Iamme, that the judge can only do such "throwing out" when it is in favor of the defendant, and usually before the jury has even been handed the case.

Safeguards on the side of the defendant are okay by me.

I'm no lawyer, though.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And, isnt' it true that judges can throw out the decision handed down by the jury? Whats *that* all about?

Think of it as 'judicial nullification' of jury nullification.

In extreme cases, if it becomes obvious to the judge that the verdict was not rendered legitimately, it would be possible for them to substitute their own verdict for the juror's.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Trial by Jury

Think of it as 'judicial nullification' of jury nullification.

In extreme cases, if it becomes obvious to the judge that the verdict was not rendered legitimately, it would be possible for them to substitute their own verdict for the juror's.

I do not believe that the judge has the authority to substitute anything for an acquittal.