4 ms·

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done

What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.

AnHonestComment 6y ago
Is this a sincere question? It’s a mistrial to have a juror voting based on ideology rather than the facts of the trial. A juror who wouldn’t convict under any conditions is a bad juror and subverts defendant protections like requiring high juror consensus by making such measure impractical.
vidarh 6y ago
I'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.
- aleclarsoniv 6y ago
  The right to bear arms has a history of severe abuse as well, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A jury that acquits a white murderer, then convicts a black murderer of the same caliber, is the textbook definition of an impartial jury (which is unconstitutional).
35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1]. And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning. Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/impartial-jury https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge
- aleclarsoniv 6y ago
  To me, an impartial jury is one that would make the same decision when given the same evidence and accusations, regardless of who the defendant is. In that sense, jury nullification can be impartial.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

Is this a sincere question? It’s a mistrial to have a juror voting based on ideology rather than the facts of the trial. A juror who wouldn’t convict under any conditions is a bad juror and subverts defendant protections like requiring high juror consensus by making such measure impractical.

vidarh 6y ago

I'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.

aleclarsoniv 6y ago
The right to bear arms has a history of severe abuse as well, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A jury that acquits a white murderer, then convicts a black murderer of the same caliber, is the textbook definition of an impartial jury (which is unconstitutional).

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago

> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1]. And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning. Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/impartial-jury https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge

aleclarsoniv 6y ago
To me, an impartial jury is one that would make the same decision when given the same evidence and accusations, regardless of who the defendant is. In that sense, jury nullification can be impartial.