SM: The courts shouldn’t work that way.

zuzu: The courts have to work that way because those are the rules.

SM: Why are those the rules

zuzu: Because the courts have decided that those are the rules.

SM: The courts shouldn’t work that way.

………

zuzu: “A trial isn’t a soapbox; it has a goal.”

Unfortunately, the goal seems to be obtaining a conviction rather than determining whether the law is just or not.

For those of us who have not been “educated” (I would personally say “indoctrinated”) into simply accepting legalities as just and proper simply because the courts say so, this does not seem right. I agree that there must be rules, but when the rules cannot be challenged, when the rules are assumed to be infallible, justice is not being served. Justice rests as much on the RULES being just as it does on everyone following them.

Your contention is that the courts work that way because those are the rules.

My uneducated, layman’s response is: The rules are wrong.

And where I said courts have rules?

You know, maybe if you LISTENED to what I was trying to tell you rather than threw out a whole bunch of half-formed opinions you read somewhere and acted like you knew what the hell you were talking about, you might actually learn something and/or I might be inclined to take your questions seriously.

I don’t know what the agenda is of those groups you unsuccessfully linked, but it sounds like it’s a bunch of people who are upset that they don’t get to change the laws as jurors.

Jury nullification is a byproduct of the jury system, not its end. Juries can engage in nullification til the cows come home, but the only effect they’ll have is on that one case — and only in criminal cases, where the defendant can’t be tried if the jury acquits (in civil cases, the losing party can move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict). Juries have to apply the law to the facts presented to them; an individual jury’s action doesn’t change the validity of the law; they’re basically saying when they nullify that the facts presented may support a guilty charge, but the law is unfair, so they’re going to acquit anyway. The courts, however, can strike down or change laws based on a single case.

RM, the quotes in order:

1. Maryland is a state, and its constitution has no bearing on federal trials. And we’re talking about federal trials.

2. This case just supports the right of the jury to acquit regardless of the instructions given, and holds that an acquittal may not be overturned due to jury nullification. That has nothing to do with the way courts typically work, where issues of law are decided by and narrowed down by the court prior to trial. Juries can only decide on what’s presented to them, and any number of claims or defenses may be stricken or excluded prior to trial and thus never presented to the jury. SM seems to have a real problem with this.

3. Lovely quote, but not authoritative. When did he say this? In what context? What was it being quoted in support of?

4. See answer to #1.

Jesus, people, let it go already.

That’s it, SM. You’ve convinced me that everything I’ve learned in three years of law school and ten years of federal litigation practice is wrong, wrong, wrong, and you’re right.

You are the man, so I must bow to your superior knowledge.

Aw, you’re so cute when you get all sassy!

Look, I’m serious here. I know some people are against jury nullification, but this is the first time I’ve actually discussed it with someone.

And honestly, I’m really learning something here. So, I actually already knew that there were reasons why evidence could be excluded from a trial (like fruit of the poison tree), but this is the first time I really understood that the defense needed to stick to a certain preapproved defense strategy. That really depreciates the phrase ”had his/her day in court”, now doesn’t it?

On the issue of jury nullification, well I’ve got Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams on my side. Even though they are dead white guys who perpetuated the patriarchy, I’m still counting them as aces. Also, I’ve already read the stuff from groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association, and formed an opinion from it.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t another side of the story, and that’s what I’m asking.

So somewhere out there either there’s an honest argument where someone defends the practice of telling jurors that even if they think the law is being unfairly applied they have to convict if the state proves it’s case. I’d really like to read that argument and let that opinion weigh in with what I’ve already read, but I’ve not found it yet.

All I’m asking for is a pointer, I can go fetch it myself. Surely with your vast legal education and experience, that request is a piece of cake.

Otherwise, I’ve just got to assume that a bunch of lawyers, and judges (who are almost always lawyers) and a bunch of politicians (who are usually lawyers too, oddly enough), are trying to pull a fast one over all of the rest of us.

Because they are there to weigh the facts, not judge the law.

How do you square this with the quotes in post 73? Are the quotes inaccurate?

You are the man, so I must bow to your superior knowledge.

It’s not a lie (or a LIE, for that matter) for the judge to tell the jury that they’re not allowed to judge the law. Because they are there to weigh the facts, not judge the law.

I see we’re at an impasse here, and it’s pointless to argue further. I think I’ve been plain and transparent in my claim that juries have the right and the duty to not only judge the accused, but to judge the law and how it applies. I gave historical examples. You somehow thought I was comparing drug laws to slavery. I suppose you could blame that on speed reading or something.

You, however have been somewhat less than transparent. You admit that jury nullification exists, but then seem to think prosecutors and judges have a duty to stamp the practice out. So nullification exists, but it’s not dishonest for a judge to tell juries that nullification does not exist. Well, OK…

Still, you might be right on something, because I haven’t really read much from people who advocate your point of view, simply because I haven’t stumbled upon any yet. So, do you have any good recommendations?

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND (Article XXIII): “In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.”

4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

JOHN ADAMS (Second President of U.S.) (1771) (Quoted in Yale Law Journal 74 (1964): 173): “It is not only his right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

INDIANA CONSTITUTION (Article 1, Section 19, Upheld in Holliday v. State 257N.E.579, 1970): “In all criminal cases whatsoever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”