Mark Robert wrote: > I have not seen any of those shows, so I can not comment. Do you have anything > else to support your statement that "most jurors today already know" the > FIJA-type nullification information? When I explain it, hardly anyone already > "knew". Besides, if that's true, then isn't FIJA obsolete?
Clay Conrad, former chairman of FIJA, quoted below, pointed out that polls were conducted that "indicate that most people are unaware of their nullification prerogative. Dr. David Brody did two surveys, one of college students (generally, one would think, a well educated group compared to the general public) and of the general public. In both surveys, the majority of respondents believed jurors could be punished for their verdicts, and that the judge can reverse a jury acquittal." That does not accord with my informal questioning of people, but I was mainly questioning older, middle class persons of the kind that tend to be called for jury service, and it depends on how the poll question is posed. I would qualify my comment that most people "know" at an intellectual level, if asked the right way, but that most of those are unsure of what they "know", and easily led away from it by their tendency to herd behavior. So as a practical matter, there are not a lot of people who are sure enough to stand alone against the pack, and that makes the difference. Again, that is also what arguing the law in the presence of the jury would do most to correct. Jurors need something, some argument or fact, to seize upon to build a position that opposes the herd. More than that, it needs to be repeated and reinforced by more argument and fact, such that other jurors can also pick up on them, until together they move away from the herd behavior the prosecution and judge are trying to manipulate. The key point is that it is not enough to just inform the jury they have the right and power to "judge the law". That is a small step in the right direction, but so small that even if it were spread widely, it would disappoint people in the FIJA movement. Note that Conrad is *former* chairman. It is statements like those below that lost him the support of other FIJA activists. Judge for yourself. Mark Robert wrote: > I agree that the jury's default prejudice is against the defendant, but I > don't > think jury nullification is their intent when they vote with their > pro-prosecution bias to convict. I think many jurors are intimidated by > gov/prosecution power largely because they are ignorant of their power to > thwart it. Therefore, they are afraid of repercussions if they vote their > conscience to acquit, especially if they vote un-unanimous, and > super-especially if they vote to ignore the facts and refute the law. I > suppose > technically, "jury nullification" would mean voting any way that is not > perfectly aligned with the facts and the law (just like "drug-law reform" > would > technically mean any change in drug laws). But usually, it means a verdict > that > is not aligned with the prosecution's evidence. Unless you are talking about > an > extremely rare VIP case, I don't think many jurors are afraid of > repercussions > coming from the defense if they vote guilty. The message that desperately > needs > publicity is that it is ok to vote "not guilty" without fearing repercussions > from the state (and other members of the "guilty"-voting jury), no matter the > amount of hard evidence. And that only needs to reach one out of every 12 > jurors. Is that not the message of FIJA? > > Obviously, jury-nullification information does not need to include advice that > it's ok to convict based on little evidence. As you imply, there is no > shortage > of that or need for more of it. Unless I am wrong, the whole message of FIJA > is > the opposite. > > Are you truly worried that promoting FIJA-type nullification information will > increase convictions? That is surely not its intent, and I don't believe its > effect - any more than "drug-law reform" increases harsher drug laws. > > And you didn't address my point that even were law to be argued in front of > the > jury, and the law found to be unconstitutional, it would still be law. And a > not-guilty nullification would still be warranted. I believe you are still > arguing FOR FIJA-type jury nullification; you just want to educate > constitutionally-ignorant jurors first. (But haven't constitutional issues > also > been aired on plenty of TV shows?) Well, a statute that is not constitutional is not law, no matter how much it might be enforced, and no matter how many courts might proclaim otherwise. But juries don't repeal statutes they vote not to enforce, any more than the bench does when it declares the statute unconstitutional. They are still on the books, and still can be enforced. But if enough courts or juries refuse to enforce enough attempts to enforce it, sooner or later prosecutors will give up and it will become a dead letter. > > I'm all for education, but not at the exclusion of nullification. > > -Mark Clay Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon again makes it up as he goes along - and misses the mark. > > The fact is that most jurors today already know about "jury nullification". > They already know they can "vote their conscience" in defiance of the > instructions of the bench concerning what the law is. The idea has been > abundantly presented in the media for more than a decade. Anyone who has > caught > episodes of /Ally McBeal/, /The Practice/, /Boston Legal/, /Law & Order/, or a > host of other such programs that have discussed the idea during the episode, > have already been "informed" to the extent that an instruction to the jury or > a > general public education campaign could do it. > > > The only surveys I know of that have been done on this topic indicate the > exact > opposite: they indicate that most people are unaware of their nullification > prerogative. Dr. David Brody did two surveys, one of college students > (generally, one would think, a well educated group compared to the general > public) and of the general public. In both surveys, the majority of > respondents believed jurors could be punished for their verdicts, and that the > judge can reverse a jury acquittal. Jon goes by what he THINKS the answer > SHOULD be, and assumes it is correct, but the empirical studies indicate the > exact opposite is the truth. > > > > > > > That isn't enough. Most jurors come to court with a pro-prosecution bias. "If > he isn't guilty they wouldn't be prosecuting him." Most prosecutions succeed > by > presenting the accused as a "bad guy", often on the basis of actions that > have > nothing to do with the charge, and the jury becomes willing to convict him of > the crime of "wreaking", which sounds like something bad, and since he's a bad > guy, he must be guilty of it, whatever it is. I know a lot of people who have > been convicted of non-existent crimes. (Ed Heimlich was convicted of stealing > his own money, for example.) > > > > That isn't an accurate description of what Heimlich was convicted of. However, > it is true that most jurors are biased towards the gummint. We are not a > skeptical society; haven't been for at least since WWI. > > > > > Why do most tax protesters get convicted? Some of them do manage to get across > to the jury that they sincerely believe there is no law that requires them to > file or pay taxes. But that isn't enough. Most of the jurors just reason, "I > don't care if the income tax is unconstitutional. They can put you in jail if > you don't pay it, and I paid to stay out of jail, so if I had to, I'm not > going > to let him get away with not doing it." > > > Nope. Most jurors believe that the defendants either are not sincere, and > that > their beliefs are opportunistic, unreasonable, and contrived. The real > question > is the sincerity of these beliefs, and merely CLAIMING them doesn't make them > sincerely held. Most tax protesters come across as manipulative, arrogant and > sneaky; this dooms their cases. Very few come across as humble dupes who are > trying to obey the law (instead of to find a way around it.) Accordingly, > they > get convicted. > > > > > Why do most federal drug prosecutions succeed? Even if the accused somehow > gets > it across to the jury that the U.S. statute under which he is charged is > unconstitutional, they just reason, "He's a bad guy. What difference does it > make whether the feds or the state locks him up? The important thing is to get > him off the streets." > > > > Nope. Most people believe that drugs are bad and that drug dealers and users > belong in prison or in coerced "treatment." Moreover, the claim that the drug > laws are unconstitutional may sound pretty, but to believe that most jurors > think the drug laws are unconstitutional is delusional. > > > > > > These cases are examples of what I mean by "voting one's conscience" operating > to produce an unjust verdict, as a matter of constitutional law, as > originally > understood. The kind of lesson in law the jurors need is much, much deeper > and > more detailed than any simple notion of "conscience" can handle. The jury has > to be made to understand, against their prejudices, not only that a charge is > unlawful, but why that is important. That is typically a matter of days of > legal argument, extensive briefs, and hours studying in a law library. There > is > no way a single, simple instruction or public information. Ideally, our public > schools would give everyone the equivalent of at least one year of law school, > but that isn't going to happen. The fact is, if jurors don't learn the law of > the case while they are empaneled, they never will. And, for that matter, > neither will judges, or the attorneys, or the press, or public observers, or > anyone else. > > > > Fantasy land. People who aren't involved in law professionally are not likely > to study it in large numbers to the extent Jon imagines. Won't happen. So > let's try to get the best results out of reality, shall we? > > Clay S. Conrad www.jurygeek.blogspot.com <http://www.jurygeek.blogspot.com> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! > GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "FIJA <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FIJA>" on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
