How does it really work?

Can you be punished for using it in court if you’re a member of the Jury?

Pitfalls, down sides or lesser known consequences from using it?

Ask the OJ jury about it.

One of the references from the Wikipedia page on the topic includes this reference.

https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf

That would be Prof. James Duane, of the famous "Don't Talk to the Police" video.

The first rule about JN is you don't talk about JN.

Think Nike:   JUST DO IT!

User Name checks out.

Well that was different.

I do not have any concerns about using it. My state's constitution says:
"In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts".

This

This, the state just didn't prove it's case in my mind.  I still have a reasonable doubt.

This.

They can't prove what you are thinking unless you let them know.

Judges hate Nullification.

A guy was standing on the sidewalk outside a courthouse handing out juror rights pamphlets.
A first term judge who was the prosecutor before the last election pulls some borderline illegal shit to punish him for First Amendment protected speech.
Six years later, the Michigan Supreme court says that the First Amendment protects the distribution of pamphlets on a public sidewalk.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/11/cleared-of-jury-tampering-man-who-gave-out-pamphlets-at-courthouse-alleges-malicious-prosecution.html

MECOSTA COUNTY, MI – A man whose jury-tampering conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court has filed a federal lawsuit against the judge, prosecutor and others in the controversial case.

Keith Eric Wood was arrested at the Big Rapids courthouse after he handed out pamphlets – “Your Jury Rights: True or False?” - containing information on jury nullification.

Make sure to ask about it during the selection process.

The jury is the true measure of what separates USofA from every country on earth.   Some will say the vote but that is not true, everybody votes.   Saddam had elections.  

No other country allows a group of 12 random individuals to determine what is just.  Regardless of what the law says, lawyers say, judges say, those citizens make the determination if the state has overstepped its authority and determines what is right in that community.  
 

There isn't a judge or an attorney on the planet that can control me. My honesty was not purchased from them OR provided by them.

To add, IF you decide on JN have the conviction to stand by your decision because you will face great peer pressure if you go against the rest of the jury's decision.
They can come up with some BS to boot you and use an alternative juror.  Courts can get pissy over mistrials.

So much this.

It exists.  It is "legal" for a juror to do it.  It is improper for the defense to attempt to get a jury to do it.

At the beginning of the trial, the each member of the jury swears an oath to apply the law as given them and, if they find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant has broken the law, to find the defendant guilty.  Regardless of personal feelings about the defendant, the victim or the law.  

Like many things, jury nullification cuts in all directions.  Guy has sex with a 12 year old girl and a juror thinks she looks 18 or that you should be able to so he hangs the jury.  Person thinks that even if the defendant is guilty, because the defendant is a minority and the cops are white he shouldn't be punished and hangs the jury (I've had that happen).  

And once this starts to happen, the guilty are getting mistrials because people are voting their personal beliefs rather than the law and evidence.  

Now, prosecutors realize when this happens.  We speak to the jury and they are telling us it was 7-1, we'll just retry the case and find the defendant guilty then.

The state and its minions hate it. You’ll see that in this thread.

Free men should embrace it - but be warned that ne’er-do-wells will also embrace it whether we do or not.

What about when the judge declares they are the judge of the law and the jury is the judge of the facts?

Last year I "almost" had to try a case like this. What's your experience been re: the admissibility of social media posts, or similar pics that were seen by the defendant of a borderline underage girl that clearly make her look much older? This specific case, the defendant missed the statutory age difference by just a few weeks. That one really stressed me out.

eta: @JLH3

also, wasn't a 12yo girl in my case, but a 15yo vs. 19yo...

Just like the Philip Brailsford jury. Or OJ. Or Derrik Chauvin. Or Nicolae Miu. How about Donald Trumps jury? Everyone happy with that?

We’d be better off replacing juries with some for of carnival ring toss game, a coin flip or maybe a monkey that pulls levers.

One of those four year "Romeo and Juliet" states where Romeo was 50 months older than Juliet?

Michigan's poster boy for their version of that law was a 18 year old married dude. Couldn't support his 18 year old wife and two year old kid because they were 15 when the kid was conceived, shitbird Washtenaw County Persecuting Attorney went after him hard while not prosecuting her at all. The dude graduated high school as a registered sex offender with a baby to support. Two things his parents should have done were press charges against the girl and gone to trial instead of pushing the boy to take a plea deal that made him a sex offender.

This was a sad case to me. A 19 yo kid, who looked all of 16, and a 15yo girl, who looked all of 20. Missed the 4 year age difference by like 3 weeks. Kid really didn't know she was too young. In the end, he had to eat a felony in exchange for not going to prison. But I was ready to take a chance with the jury.

The jury is the trier of fact. The credibility of any given witness is a question of fact. If you think that the prosecution witnesses were not credible, that's entirely your decision to make.

What would you say is the percentage of 7 1 trials do you retry?

Well said. Succinct.

If juries were limited to those with morals and standards routine nullification might be a good thing.

Unfortunately it's not.  But then again neither are prosecutors.

Imo if the law is unconstitutional or extremely unfair then nullification is your duty.

Judging based on pure emotions or spite is not right and shouldn't be done.

I'm glad our constitution allows for this. But it should be used sparingly.  

I highly doubt our society today can field a trial that involves a moral jury, judge, law enforcement, law itself and prosecutor.  Just not going to happen because we have fallen so far from our days as a god fearing nation.



You are here: 2 Timothy chapter 3.

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. "

Not much experience with it.  But I do know that things such as text messages saying she was of age have been admissible.

In Arizona:

E. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1405 and 13-3560 if the victim is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age, the defendant is under nineteen years of age or attending high school and is no more than twenty-four months older than the victim and the conduct is consensual.

If it's 7-1 to convict?  Most of them.

Thanks for that post.  I just looked up my state (OR) and it is one of four (Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia) that have that in their Constitution.

Very educational. And kudos to Oregon... at least they got something right!

Have to report for jury duty Monday. I'll bring it up during selection and see what happens.

This kinda what I was thinking.  

Already prepared for the fight when I make them store my firearm for me.  

will be a fun day. Will 100% mention it if possible.  DMing you when they throw me in the brink!  

That is the point. My state constitution clearly states otherwise.

My understanding is that this is not what jury nullification is.  If the state proves its case without any question that someone violated a law, but you believe that law to be unjust/unconstitutional, you can still vote "not guilty" despite the preponderance of evidence. That is jury nullification.

The jury has the sole right. It can do what it wants.

That's not nullification.  That's doing what you're supposed to do.  

This is from the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Criminal)  .  This is the instruction given to jurors in criminal trials regarding Burden of Proof and Standards for the Burden of Proof.

Standard Criminal 4(a)   Burden of Proof
The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This means the State must prove each element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not or that its truth is highly probable. In criminal cases such as this, the State's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find [him][her] guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that [he][she] is not guilty, you must give [him][her] the benefit of the doubt and find [him][her] not guilty.

Standard Criminal 4(b)   Standards for the Burden of Proof
There are three standards for the burden of proof:
1. Preponderance of the evidence;
2. Clear and convincing evidence;
3. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of the Evidence   A party having the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence must persuade you, by the evidence, that the claim or a fact is more probably true than not true. This means the evidence that favors that party outweighs the opposing evidence.  
Clear and Convincing Evidence   A party having the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence must persuade you, by the evidence, that the claim or a fact is highly probable. This standard is higher than the standard for proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but is lower than the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt   The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the State must prove each element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof, by the evidence that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. This standard is higher than the standard for either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence.
There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find [him][her] guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that [he][she] is not guilty, you must give [him][her] the benefit of the doubt and find [him][her] not guilty.

(PS: It lists both pronouns because the parties and the court is supposed to copy and paste the instruction exactly, modify for sex of the defendant and provide it to the jury)

Repeat after me- “The State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”. Say it loud, say it proud, say it often and say nothing else. One sentence, no speeches- you’re a juror, not Patrick Henry. And don’t advertise your pre-existing biases on social media, either- in this case, being a lurker can stand you in good stead vis a vis the legal system. When entering the court room as a juror or defendant, notoriety is never your friend.

We don't do juries here. There is never enough parking nearby.