[–] [deleted] 2 points 95 points (+97|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
18

[–] NassTee 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Talking about jury nullification is not in itself jury tampering, but endorsing or encouraging it is, especially if you do so towards anyone currently on a jury. If it's presented in a completely neutral way, it's not jury tampering. But what are the odds that a guy who feels so strongly about it that he's going to spend all day telling people about it isn't occasionally going to at least imply that people should do it? My guess is he said the wrong thing to the wrong person, which was enough to get him arrested, but probably won't result in a trial, let alone a conviction.

0
8

[–] KinglyWeevil 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

He just needs to be very careful about stating that people could do things, instead of that they should do things.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

well what if you're on the jury? Other people are gonna try and convince you to convict, whats wrong with trying to convince people to nullify?

1
1

[–] tsaoutofourpants 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Talking about jury nullification is not in itself jury tampering, but endorsing or encouraging it is

Sorry, no, that's not the standard. The standard is whether or not you are attempting to influence a particular trial, not whether your perspective is neutral. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees the right to take a side and share your opinion.

0
8

[–] eldorann 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Arrested to cop: Check and mate.

0
4

[–] Jamesx_ 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The first rule of jury nullification is "don't talk about jury nullification."

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] starfox 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

I disagree

3
48

[–] brother_tempus 3 points 48 points (+51|-3) ago 

The right of the people through the legal system to invalidate illegal and iotals laws passed by the State is an established precedent going back centuries

3
27

[–] Sorahzahd 3 points 27 points (+30|-3) ago 

Agreed, this arrest is disgusting.

0
2

[–] sadam029 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

this arrest is disgusting illegal.

ftfy

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
12

[–] JJEvil 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

That typo just broke google: http://i.imgur.com/ktg3s1K.jpg

Never seen that before.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] 1440838? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

iotals is a perfectly cromulent word. I iotals the word iotals all the time.

0
1

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
1

[–] TalkingAnimal 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

When us goat folks hear about jury nullification, we think of applying it in a drug trial or a whistle-blowing case or something that aligns with our moral sensibilities. It's just as likely to be used in getting a cop off of assault or murder or evidence tampering charges, or getting off someone who murdered an abortion doctor.

Yes, it exists, and we have a right to it... but sometimes I'm ok with not everyone knowing that.

1
0

[–] phenomenaldouche 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Before we all get too excited about encouraging jury nullification, let's consider its grand history of being used for things like letting white people get away with murdering black folks and whatnot in the post civil war south.

If you say but "I'd only use it to nullify a prosecution that I think is bullshit" you might want to stop and think that not everyone agrees with you. For example, if you were a family of a black person who'd been lynched and you watched the killer go free thanks to jury nullification, you might feel just a tiny bit like justice hadn't been done.

I can pull citations for you if you like, but it's pretty much settled history that this happened a lot. It also happened in bullshit prohibition prosecutions (yeah, a good thing) but it's most definitely a double-edged sword.

0
32

[–] OmicronPersei8 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

Someone watched the CGP Grey video

0
3

[–] NewtAgain 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law? Since Jury nullification is indeed a result of existing constitutional law answering no to that and then practicing jury nullification would not be perjury. Unless the lawyer specifies the specific law

0
1

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?

Yes; the law does not forbid me to make a decision based on morality, circumstance, or in order to invalidate a law. Therefore, my decision is strictly based on the law.

0
1

[–] milliamp 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

TL:DR If you think the evidence is sufficient for guilt but you don't believe the defendant should be punished for the crime you can still legally issue a not guilty without being punished for it.

This would be like if someone is charged with possession of marijuana and is probably guilty of having marijuana but you support legalization so you protect them with a not guilty ruling.

The same is true if someones whole family is murdered and later kills the murderer. Technically they are still guilty of murder in the eyes of the law but a jury could give them a pass.

0
27

[–] FPSFairy 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

If it did go before a jury, one would imagine that the FIJA brochure and other flyer would be evidence that would be presented to the jury, thereby fully informing every juror of their right to vote Not Guilty for any reason they believe is just.

Bahahaha! So in other words, any jury that he gets will presumably be educated on what jury nullification is because they'll have to look over the brochures he was handing out. Assuming the trial is conducted ethically, anyway. Which may be a bit of an assumption.

0
7

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That's the thing. They keep jurys from reading the laws and don't explain what the true laws are. People don't know they can do that or what their true power is. That's why this guy was handing out information that explains the law. And I know 'jury nullification' isn't a law but the concept of whether they can nullify a law by saying not guilty or guilty is.

0
11

[–] 1438569? 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And if you mention any knowledge of jury nullification, or show too much knowledge, you're simply not picked as a juror.

So naturally, since the jurors are manually selected, they will pick the dirt-stupidest, most manipulable people of the lot.

Jury by the lowest common denominators, being guided by the best manipulators money can buy.

[–] [deleted] 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] UberNado 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I live in Colorado (not Denver). One day a man in my city started passing out copies of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. The courthouse administrator canceled and postponed all jury trials that day because one of the potential jurors may have seen a pamphlet and those jurors may have learned that jury nullification considered to be one of the "checks and balances" permitted under constitutional law. The judges in all jury trials hand out "instructions" that say the contrary, kind of how the President issues "executive orders" that run contrary to law.

0
3

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You are not allowed to know or read what the law is in a court of law.

0
1

[–] weezkitty 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's how we know this country is fucked

0
6

[–] comrade_ouroboros 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I don't agree with it ... but it does sound like he was in violation of:

(1) A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.

If he was doing this elsewhere I think it would be easy to say he was not targeting jurors ... but doing it in front of the courthouse.

Regardless, if I was on his jury I would nullify it.

0
4

[–] 30GoingOn13 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Sounds like he was handing it out in general in front of the courthouse. Most of the people heading into the courthouse on any given day are not jurors, so I'd think the claim that he was targeting jurors couldn't hold much water.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
7

[–] CrowTRobot 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification

I don't get this. Jury nullification is still law, right? So they just can't uphold this law?

0
15

[–] DropkickM161 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

It's not actually law, it's just not something that can reasonably be prohibited. When you're on a jury, it's up to you to cast a vote for the guilt or innocence of the person tried, and you have complete freedom to vote either way regardless of motive. So if you're on a jury where somebody is obviously guilty but you hunker down and insist they're innocent, it's well within your rights (but apparently really pisses people off!). The court can't very well intervene and force you to vote the way you're "supposed to" because that pretty much kills the point of a jury trial.

0
7

[–] rwbj 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Laws can change, be repealed, and so on. Jury nullification isn't a law so much as the fact that in our country jurors are the law. There's a precedent going back hundreds of years of jurors declaring defendants who they feel to be guilty as not guilty when they find the law or conditions under which the individual is being tried as unjust.

0
1

[–] Mysteryman64 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

No, it's just an outcome of the jury system, not a legally enshrined right.

Because we have jury by peers, and peers can declare guilty or not guilty and don't have to give reason for why they voted they way they do, jurors have defacto ability to nullify laws.

1
2

[–] rwbj 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Wiki is great for a basic reference, but pretty terrible as a source of information beyond that. And many of the links in that article are actually dead which is also pretty standard for Wiki. I do take it on good faith that what they're saying is derivative of what was stated in the link, but all accountability is removed.

In any case here's a recent case of jurors nullifying a death penalty, here is an even more overt (though less recent one) where a jury nullified an absurd drug charge, and so on. Most cases obviously are not going to make the news and bring nullification to the spotlight.

Here is a less cherry picked quote of the 2006 California judgement cited in the Wiki article:

Jurors have a duty to follow the law as stated to them by the trial court. Nevertheless, although it is a power which they ha[ve] no right to exercise, jurors have the ability to disregard, or nullify, the law. But the circumstance that the prosecution may be powerless to challenge a jury verdict or finding that is prompted by the jury's refusal to apply a particular law does not lessen the obligation of each juror to obey the court's instructions. Accordingly, it is important not to encourage or glorify the jury's power to disregard the law. While that power has, on some occasions, achieved just results, it also has led to verdicts based upon bigotry and racism. A jury that disregards the law and, instead, reaches a verdict based upon the personal views and beliefs of the jurors violates one of our nation's most basic precepts: that we are a government of laws and not men.

The above decision was obviously heavily against nullification, but I do think it's a fair assessment of nullification. It's a controversial topic. For instance New Hampshire passed a law in 2012 making council informing juries of their power to nullify completely legal. Their supreme court then later squashed it. There's a new law now making it way through their chambers once again looking to bring it back. Ultimately nullification is regularly practiced and there is nobody to "allow" it. Nullification is the de facto state of our law that jurors are the law.

0
1

[–] Patranus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

While I love jury nullification as a concept,

Why? It goes against everything any justice system or civilization is built on.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] 1438625? ago 

Well, there was the whole slave thing, where guilty white people got off free, and innocent black people were convicted.

Jury nullification goes both ways, unfortunately.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] YikYak 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Hey atleast they didnt beat his ass first! I live in denver and im more scared of the DPD than any of the thugs that hang around downtown.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)