You’re not. If you advance jury nullification ideas within the jury room, you’ll be replaced by an alternate (if available, obviously the size of the trial will impact that). Now, there might be different laws in different states on the matter, but the ones I’m familiar with allow removal.
Best thing to do is vote not guilty (assuming the case and charge allow it), and just say you’re not convinced past a reasonable doubt.
They typically won’t ask if you support or have heard of jury nullification during voir dire. They will leave that to the “is there any reason you feel you can’t bring a verdict in accordance with the law and judge’s instructions?” question.
Jury nullification isn’t itself illegal, so you can honestly answer “No”.
They asked when I went. They didn’t use the words “jury nullification” but they asked if anyone in the room would be unwilling to convict if they were convinced someone violated a law that they didn’t agree should be a law (giving a stupid example of “making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich”).
I mean, historically used, often everyone agreed “killing that gamer-word was cool and good”. That’s why there were lots of Federal civil rights trials after local juries refused to convict.
Now, it’s more likely that you’ll hang a jury rather than get 12 to agree with you, since nullification was cracked down on after all that.
No, if it’s coordinated then no one has to worry about being dimed out to the judge :) but, it’s very risky to bring it up openly, so someone has to do it, and it can’t be you, since you know you’ll vote not guilty. Prisoners dilemma type problem.
You’re not. If you advance jury nullification ideas within the jury room, you’ll be replaced by an alternate (if available, obviously the size of the trial will impact that). Now, there might be different laws in different states on the matter, but the ones I’m familiar with allow removal.
Best thing to do is vote not guilty (assuming the case and charge allow it), and just say you’re not convinced past a reasonable doubt.
You can’t mention that you know about it so they pick you, obviously.
I guess you can also lie your ass off to get in, but if you go hard on that the defense is likely to remove you from consideration instead.
They typically won’t ask if you support or have heard of jury nullification during voir dire. They will leave that to the “is there any reason you feel you can’t bring a verdict in accordance with the law and judge’s instructions?” question.
Jury nullification isn’t itself illegal, so you can honestly answer “No”.
Yea they avoid mentioning it. My point was that you can’t seem as anything but a blank slate doofus to get accepted into a jury.
Completely correct.
They asked when I went. They didn’t use the words “jury nullification” but they asked if anyone in the room would be unwilling to convict if they were convinced someone violated a law that they didn’t agree should be a law (giving a stupid example of “making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich”).
The more trivial a thing you build an example out of the more demonic it actually is to think about.
Yeah, just hang the jury
hang the judge if you can get a rope around his neck
:pog-fish:
Holy shit can you actually be removed if you bring up things the prosecution doesn’t like?
Both the prosecution and the defense. They have to agree on all the jurors afaik.
Things the judge doesn’t like, yes. Basically while you have a right to nullify a jury, you don’t have the right to SAY you’re nullifying the jury.
So how can jury nullification even take place?
I mean, historically used, often everyone agreed “killing that gamer-word was cool and good”. That’s why there were lots of Federal civil rights trials after local juries refused to convict.
Now, it’s more likely that you’ll hang a jury rather than get 12 to agree with you, since nullification was cracked down on after all that.
So basically everyone would just have to refuse to convict without it being coordinated?
No, if it’s coordinated then no one has to worry about being dimed out to the judge :) but, it’s very risky to bring it up openly, so someone has to do it, and it can’t be you, since you know you’ll vote not guilty. Prisoners dilemma type problem.
ah so just ignore all the old whites and hope everyone else isn’t on some uncle tom shit