Trial by Jury

[Brown]

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.

In a criminal case, this is basically correct. In a civil case, the judge can give a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNV) to either side if the jury was out of line (and there are some strict standards for determining whether a jury is out of line).

Sometimes a judge is inclined to take the case away from the jury, and issue a directed verdict. Standards for issuing a directed verdict are very strict, and the chance of reversal on appeal is usually pretty high. So even if the judge thinks very strongly that the defendant is innocent, the judge will still let the jury decide the question of guilt or innocence. If the jury determines that the defendant is innocent, then the result is exactly what the judge thought should happen; and jury verdicts tend to be upheld, so the chance of reversal on appeal is low.

If, on the other hand, the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, and the judge feels that the verdict is clearly motivated by something other than the evidence, the judge can set aside the verdict and the appellate court will determine whether the judge was right. If the appellate court determines that the judge was wrong, the jury verdict is reinstated without another trial. (By contrast, if the judge were to issue a directed verdict, and the appellate court were to determine that the judge was wrong, there would be no jury verdict to reinstate, and the entire case would have to be tried all over again. That is not very efficient, so judges almost never issue directed verdicts.)

 

[Iamme]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iamme
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


__________________

But is this constitutional? Is this what the framers had in mind when they said 'trial by jury'? It sounds more like the jury' verdict stands only if the judge agrees with their decision.

But even if this only applies to blatant legal disregards by the jury...then shouldn't a new jury try the case so that the verdict, in the end, is handed down by a jury, so that we have 'trial by jury'?

 

[shanek]

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.

No, they are supposed to consider precisely that. They're just being lied to by judges and told otherwise.

Lots more information available here: http://www.fija.org/

 

[Iamme]

If, on the other hand, the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, and the judge feels that the verdict is clearly motivated by something other than the evidence, the judge can set aside the verdict and the appellate court will determine whether the judge was right. If the appellate court determines that the judge was wrong, the jury verdict is reinstated without another trial. (By contrast, if the judge were to issue a directed verdict, and the appellate court were to determine that the judge was wrong, there would be no jury verdict to reinstate, and the entire case would have to be tried all over again. That is not very efficient, so judges almost never issue directed verdicts.)

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

You helped answer a lot of my questions from my post immediately above.

So...that means that the jury in the Michael Jackson trial can't 'fudge' because they know that his admirers, worldwide, would not approve of Michael being put away for years?

And, in the O.J. trial, some of this very thing didn't come into play? Hmmmm. Maybe the judge went along with it, instead of overriding the jurors decision, because the Judge himself was a fan of O.J.?

 

[shanek]

Quite right. The Supreme Court, final arbiters of constitutionality,

No, they aren't. Nowhere in Article III are they given this role. The people are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, since we ordained and established it. And the jury comes from and represents the people.

Asking untrained jurors to take this into account is a bit much.

William Penn disagrees, as does John Peter Zenger (and his attorney Alexander Hamilton), John Hancock (and his attorney John Adams), all the people who helped fugitive slaves escape who were acquitted despite the fact that they clearly broke the law, and countless other examples.

Moreover, jury nullification is precisely what led to many concepts in common law still in use in our courts, such as the idea that truth is a defense to libel (as established in the Zenger case).

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson accused the King of "depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury." The very reason why the King kept denying this was because he had trouble getting his tyrannies past the juries. For example, the jury acquitted John Hancock because to do otherwise would mean supporting the Townsend Act, which they didn't. Since the King couldn't get these past the juries, he started taking smugglers into military court and trying them without juries. So, make no mistake: one of the "benefits of trial by jury" that Jefferson mentioned, maybe even the most important one, was jury nullification.

Besides, it's we, the people, who are bound to obey the law, right? So what does it say that we, the people are unable to understand the law? If we can't understand the law, how can we be expected to obey it?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

Because then we no longer have equality before the law, but the rule of the mob:

That "mob" is otherwise known as "the people," who are the source of all legitimate government powers in this country.

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.

The key word there is, "white jury." The problem wasn't jury nullification; it was the fact that the government prohibited blacks from serving on juries.

Amazing how those who try to argue against jury nullification always bring this example up, and always fail to mention the problem with jury selection, which was the real root cause of the problem.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

Juries have neither the education nor the experience to rule on questions of constitutional law.

Blatant statist apologetics. The juries represent we, the people, who ordained and established the Constitution, and from whom all legitimate political power derives. They absolutely get to consider the Constitution.

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.

Which is the problem: there's too much examination of interpretations of interpretations, and too little actually reading the Constitution.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Trial by Jury

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

Not an acquittal. They can only set aside a conviction or change it to a conviction of a lesser charge.

 

[Iamme]

shanek---But basically it is because the judge thought the jury took improprieties regarding their decision? He simply can't overrule the jury because he thought the party was innocent instead of guilty, correct?

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Trial by Jury

That "mob" is otherwise known as "the people," who are the source of all legitimate government powers in this country.

That's quite true. The people ARE the legitimate source of all government power in the USA... including the judicial and legislative powers.

So, let's see what we have here:

ON THE ONE HAND:

1). A law, enacted by the people through their representatives in Congress;

2). Which, as the principle of equality before the law says, is intended to be applied equally to all--a principle found in the Constitution, the basis of all law, the one enacted by the people;

3). A judge whose job is to interpret this same law, who is either elected by the people or appointed by an executive and legistlative branch members who were elected by the people;

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Twelve jurors, who decided that the will of the people as expressed by (1), (2), and (3) above should not count.

As you quite rightly say, the laws passed by Congress, the judges who sit in trial, etc., get their legitimacy precisely because they represent the will of the people (through elections): this is why, for instance, it's "The people of the USA (or a certain state) versus Joe Schmoe" in a criminal case.

And since the laws represent the will of the people, twelve jurors have no more right to decide against obeying the law than a judge or a governor or a president has, no matter how much they feel they represent what the people "really" want.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by ShaneK
So, make no mistake: one of the "benefits of trial by jury" that Jefferson mentioned, maybe even the most important one, was jury nullification.

Do you have a link about Jefferson and jury nullification?

Thanks,

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Does anyone have any thoughts on sentencing and the jury. For example, a juror might think the defendant deserves to go to jail for one month but the law requires a 10 year sentence. Knowing this the juror, might choose acquital as the lesser of two evils.

I know of some instances where the jurors guessed at sentences to determine the proper verdict. This is especially true when the prosecutor tries a man for two different crimes (e.g. murder and manslaughter) in order to ensure a guilty plea.

CBL

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Trial by Jury

As you quite rightly say, the laws passed by Congress, the judges who sit in trial, etc., get their legitimacy precisely because they represent the will of the people (through elections)

The extent to which politicians reflect the will of the people ends at the voting booth. After that, politicians represent the will of special interest groups, ideologies, moral police, religious sects, business interests, and party politics.

It's silly to assume that since someone was elected or appointed by someone who was elected that anything they do, regardless of it's constitutional validity, is the will of the people.

 

[shanek]

shanek---But basically it is because the judge thought the jury took improprieties regarding their decision? He simply can't overrule the jury because he thought the party was innocent instead of guilty, correct?

The judge can basically decide that the jury wasn't being reasonable, that no reasonable jury would convict, and overturn the conviction and direct a finding of not guilty. But he can't do it the other way around.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Trial by Jury

That's quite true. The people ARE the legitimate source of all government power in the USA... including the judicial and legislative powers.

So, let's see what we have here:

ON THE ONE HAND:

1). A law, enacted by the people through their representatives in Congress;

2). Which, as the principle of equality before the law says, is intended to be applied equally to all--a principle found in the Constitution, the basis of all law, the one enacted by the people;

3). A judge whose job is to interpret this same law, who is either elected by the people or appointed by an executive and legistlative branch members who were elected by the people;

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Twelve jurors, who decided that the will of the people as expressed by (1), (2), and (3) above should not count.

As according to THE CONSTITUTION, which trumps all other laws. The Constitution set up the guarantees of trial by jury.

As you quite rightly say, the laws passed by Congress, the judges who sit in trial, etc., get their legitimacy precisely because they represent the will of the people (through elections):

And juries represent the will of the people in court cases. They're part of the system of checks and balances. Removing jury nullification is removing the last ditch effort at preventing the creation and enforcement of tyrannical laws.

this is why, for instance, it's "The people of the USA (or a certain state) versus Joe Schmoe" in a criminal case.

No, it's because the government likes doublespeak. They really mean "the government vs." whoever. The prosecution represents the government. The jury represents the people.

 

[shanek]

Do you have a link about Jefferson and jury nullification?

How about:

"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." &letter to Thomas Paine, 1789

"If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right which is casual only is less dangerous to the state and less afflicting to the loser than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system." —Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

 

[shanek]

Does anyone have any thoughts on sentencing and the jury. For example, a juror might think the defendant deserves to go to jail for one month but the law requires a 10 year sentence. Knowing this the juror, might choose acquital as the lesser of two evils.

I don't think they allow attorneys to tell the jury what the possible sentences are.

 

[Skeptic]

No, it's because the government likes doublespeak. They really mean "the government vs." whoever. The prosecution represents the government. The jury represents the people.

But it is a REPRESENTATIVE government, is it not? That is, a government that represents the will of the people--as enacted through their representatives in Congress, etc.

This is the logical problem at the heart of the Libertarian view: they make no distinction between a despotic government and a representative one.

Representative government, while imperfect, is not some alien being as opposed to "the people"; however imperfectly, it IS part of "the people" and represents what "the people" want.

 

[Iamme]

How about:

"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." &letter to Thomas Paine, 1789

"If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right which is casual only is less dangerous to the state and less afflicting to the loser than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system." —Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

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

Sounds like doubletalk. The author of this was either drunk, tired or someone did not copy the original document very well. You can tell in certain sentences above, that there are words missing, that should be there, or, at the least, there are some s's missing after some words. To try to read this quickly, without those words or s's, it sounds like I said, like doubletalk.

 

[shanek]

But it is a REPRESENTATIVE government, is it not?

It's first and foremost a CONSTITUTIONAL government.

That is, a government that represents the will of the people--as enacted through their representatives in Congress, etc.

No, that would be the Constitution that represents the will of the people, as enacted by the states. In doing so, they have charged Congress with certain duties, and given them certain LIMITED powers.

This is the logical problem at the heart of the Libertarian view: they make no distinction between a despotic government and a representative one.

Because without a Constitution, the only difference is the number of targets when it comes time to overthrow the tyranny.

Representative government, while imperfect, is not some alien being as opposed to "the people"; however imperfectly, it IS part of "the people" and represents what "the people" want.

No, that would be the Constitution again.