4 ms·

That's just interpreted as "not guilty". I still don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. The jury are just asked "are they guilty?" a

That's just interpreted as "not guilty". I still don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. The jury are just asked "are they guilty?" and if they don't give an answer it is, by simple virtue, not a guilty verdict. Voila, verdict of "not guilty." UK law has precedence for defendants who did do the deed being given a not guilty verdict by the jury already. We even gave it the name "perverse verdict." The wiki page on jury nullification has details.

gizmo686 7y ago
Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless of if you agree with the law". The possibility of jury nullification is not included in those instructions. Before being selected for a jury, jururs are asked (under penalty of perjury) if they can apply the law regardless of there personal feelings about it. Anyone who seriously considers nullification would be lying if they said yes, and would likely be excluded for saying no. At least in the US, all jury nullification is, is the fact that the jury's decision making is above review. It is not so much that jury nullification is legal, it is that any ban on nullification is unenforcable. The courts therefore do whatever they can to avoid nullification.
- Jestar342 7y ago
  > Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless of if you agree with the law". The possibility of jury nullification is not included in those instructions. No, they aren't[1]. And from my own experience of serving on a large fraud case, the Judge even went into detail about "You are to return a guilty verdict if you think they are guilty of the crime charged, paying special note that you must believe beyond reasonable doubt, that their actions constitute a crime." Later in the case this became apparent when the evidence from the defence suggested one of the defendants was under coercion. i.e. they did commit the act of fraud, but not criminally so. > Before being selected for a jury, jururs are asked (under penalty of perjury) if they can apply the law regardless of there personal feelings about it. Anyone who seriously considers nullification would be lying if they said yes, and would likely be excluded for saying no. No, they aren't[1]. In fact the opposite. We were asked to use our "worldly experience" to help us reach a verdict. [1] Full instructions (to judges) about Jury management in the UK is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-court-compendium-part-i-jury-and-trial-management-and-summing-up.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-co....
  - maemilius 7y ago
    GP is referring to US policies on jury selection which, as far as I'm aware, _do_ include the stated provisions.
  - yumraj 7y ago
    > No, they aren't[1]. Courts may be different, but as part of jury selection you are told that you have to take an oath that even if you disagree you have to follow the law. I'm fact hinting that you know about jury nullification seems to be a great way to get out of jury duty. > No, they aren't[1]. In fact the opposite. We were asked to use our "worldly experience" to help us reach a verdict. Well, in my case the judge was very clear to use ONLY the evidence provided in the court and to NOT use any external info or knowledge.
    - rexaliquid 7y ago
      I was instructed to use my common sense and experience to interpret the evidence provided in court, and told not to seek out external references.

gizmo686 7y ago

Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless of if you agree with the law". The possibility of jury nullification is not included in those instructions. Before being selected for a jury, jururs are asked (under penalty of perjury) if they can apply the law regardless of there personal feelings about it. Anyone who seriously considers nullification would be lying if they said yes, and would likely be excluded for saying no. At least in the US, all jury nullification is, is the fact that the jury's decision making is above review. It is not so much that jury nullification is legal, it is that any ban on nullification is unenforcable. The courts therefore do whatever they can to avoid nullification.

Jestar342 7y ago
> Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless of if you agree with the law". The possibility of jury nullification is not included in those instructions. No, they aren't[1]. And from my own experience of serving on a large fraud case, the Judge even went into detail about "You are to return a guilty verdict if you think they are guilty of the crime charged, paying special note that you must believe beyond reasonable doubt, that their actions constitute a crime." Later in the case this became apparent when the evidence from the defence suggested one of the defendants was under coercion. i.e. they did commit the act of fraud, but not criminally so. > Before being selected for a jury, jururs are asked (under penalty of perjury) if they can apply the law regardless of there personal feelings about it. Anyone who seriously considers nullification would be lying if they said yes, and would likely be excluded for saying no. No, they aren't[1]. In fact the opposite. We were asked to use our "worldly experience" to help us reach a verdict. [1] Full instructions (to judges) about Jury management in the UK is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-court-compendium-part-i-jury-and-trial-management-and-summing-up.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-co....
- maemilius 7y ago
  GP is referring to US policies on jury selection which, as far as I'm aware, _do_ include the stated provisions.
- yumraj 7y ago
  > No, they aren't[1]. Courts may be different, but as part of jury selection you are told that you have to take an oath that even if you disagree you have to follow the law. I'm fact hinting that you know about jury nullification seems to be a great way to get out of jury duty. > No, they aren't[1]. In fact the opposite. We were asked to use our "worldly experience" to help us reach a verdict. Well, in my case the judge was very clear to use ONLY the evidence provided in the court and to NOT use any external info or knowledge.
  - rexaliquid 7y ago
    I was instructed to use my common sense and experience to interpret the evidence provided in court, and told not to seek out external references.