4 ms·

I was called up for jury selection in Manhattan, and this was my experience. They asked if anyone had a problem with the law in question (it was a drug case) a

I was called up for jury selection in Manhattan, and this was my experience. They asked if anyone had a problem with the law in question (it was a drug case) and then asked if I would be able to return a guilty verdict. I was not paneled on the jury. In my case, a large number (>100) jurors were dismissed for what did not appear to be any reason, so it may have been something else I said or something I wrote on the questionnaire they gave us. I was also surprised by the number of dismissed jurors, since I was led to believe (mostly, I think, by Law & Order) that there was a limit on the peremptory dismissals. On the elevator on the way out, other dismissed jurors congratulated my on a novel way to avoid jury duty. This annoyed me, since I would have really liked to have been on that jury. Although I agree with the article that juries should have more powerful, I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying.

rdtsc 15y ago
However they can't stop you from changing your mind. If they didn't ask if you "won't have a problem when it comes to deliberations" you can reasonably start disagreeing with the law the more you understand how this law is applied to real people in real cases.
mindcrime 15y ago
Although I agree with the article that juries should have more powerful, I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying. Yeah, I had more or less the same thought. In my own case, I do believe in Jury Nullification; it just happened that the case was a property crime case (breaking and entering, larceny) which is one of the areas where the law seems reasonably just. So I didn't speak up or anything, and ultimately did serve on the jury.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
> I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying. If you're going into a case knowing you'll say "guilty" or "not guilty" without actually hearing the facts of the case, you should get kicked off the jury, independent of your belief in jury nullification. If you plan to decide based on both the law and the facts of the case, you should listen very carefully to the questions asked, to ensure that your boolean answers remain truthful. Question: "Do you have a problem with the law in question?" Unspoken answer: "Depends on the facts of the case." Boolean answer: "No." Question: "Would you be able to return a guilty verdict?" Unspoken answer: "Yes, I have the ability to do so, and in general a belief in jury nullification means I want to decide based on the facts of the case as well as the law, which the constitution of my state specifically gives juries the power to do." Boolean answer: "Yes."
- andrewla 15y ago
  If I had thought it through, I might have been able to offer white lies to cover the questions they asked. As it was, they didn't ask me anything so nice as "do you have a problem with the law in question"; they asked several questions related to that, including "do you have any feelings about drug legalization". They didn't just ask if I could return a guilty verdict, either -- they asked if I would return a guilty verdict based on the law as explained by the judge if I felt that the facts supported the verdict. To be honest, I did answer yes to this one, although I did feel a twinge and my hesitation was palpable. As for not knowing whether you'll say "guilty" or "not guilty", that's fair. They did describe enough of what the charges were that I find it hard to believe that I would convict, unless I exercised my power of "jury expandification", which would require me to convict them of the charge presented if I felt that they were guilty of other crimes, to make sure that the defendant received some punishment.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    > If I had thought it through, I might have been able to offer white lies to cover the questions they asked. I didn't intend to suggest white lies; I consider the responses I suggested entirely truthful, just carefully chosen. :) > As it was, they didn't ask me anything so nice as "do you have a problem with the law in question"; they asked several questions related to that, including "do you have any feelings about drug legalization". That could certainly make it more difficult. Depending on the wording of the questions, you may or may not have had the ability to give a truthful answer that would keep you on the jury. I certainly would not advocate lying. > They didn't just ask if I could return a guilty verdict, either -- they asked if I would return a guilty verdict based on the law as explained by the judge if I felt that the facts supported the verdict. To be honest, I did answer yes to this one, although I did feel a twinge and my hesitation was palpable. "if I felt that the facts supported the verdict" gives you all the leeway you need to say "yes" without reservation.
- jrs235 15y ago
  > Question: "Do you have a problem with the law in question?" Unspoken thought: "In and of and by itself?" Spoken Answer: "No." Unspoken thought: "I may however have a problem with the application of the law." Question: "Would you be able to return a guilty verdict?" Spoken Answer: "Yes." Unspoken thought: "If the plantiff can shown what harm the defendant has caused to the non-consenting victim of accused crime." Update: If the application of the "law" would lead to an unconscionable injustice... such as punishing (or condemning or reprimanding) a human for something which has not harmed anyone against their will.

rdtsc 15y ago

However they can't stop you from changing your mind. If they didn't ask if you "won't have a problem when it comes to deliberations" you can reasonably start disagreeing with the law the more you understand how this law is applied to real people in real cases.

mindcrime 15y ago

Although I agree with the article that juries should have more powerful, I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying. Yeah, I had more or less the same thought. In my own case, I do believe in Jury Nullification; it just happened that the case was a property crime case (breaking and entering, larceny) which is one of the areas where the law seems reasonably just. So I didn't speak up or anything, and ultimately did serve on the jury.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

> I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying. If you're going into a case knowing you'll say "guilty" or "not guilty" without actually hearing the facts of the case, you should get kicked off the jury, independent of your belief in jury nullification. If you plan to decide based on both the law and the facts of the case, you should listen very carefully to the questions asked, to ensure that your boolean answers remain truthful. Question: "Do you have a problem with the law in question?" Unspoken answer: "Depends on the facts of the case." Boolean answer: "No." Question: "Would you be able to return a guilty verdict?" Unspoken answer: "Yes, I have the ability to do so, and in general a belief in jury nullification means I want to decide based on the facts of the case as well as the law, which the constitution of my state specifically gives juries the power to do." Boolean answer: "Yes."

andrewla 15y ago
If I had thought it through, I might have been able to offer white lies to cover the questions they asked. As it was, they didn't ask me anything so nice as "do you have a problem with the law in question"; they asked several questions related to that, including "do you have any feelings about drug legalization". They didn't just ask if I could return a guilty verdict, either -- they asked if I would return a guilty verdict based on the law as explained by the judge if I felt that the facts supported the verdict. To be honest, I did answer yes to this one, although I did feel a twinge and my hesitation was palpable. As for not knowing whether you'll say "guilty" or "not guilty", that's fair. They did describe enough of what the charges were that I find it hard to believe that I would convict, unless I exercised my power of "jury expandification", which would require me to convict them of the charge presented if I felt that they were guilty of other crimes, to make sure that the defendant received some punishment.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  > If I had thought it through, I might have been able to offer white lies to cover the questions they asked. I didn't intend to suggest white lies; I consider the responses I suggested entirely truthful, just carefully chosen. :) > As it was, they didn't ask me anything so nice as "do you have a problem with the law in question"; they asked several questions related to that, including "do you have any feelings about drug legalization". That could certainly make it more difficult. Depending on the wording of the questions, you may or may not have had the ability to give a truthful answer that would keep you on the jury. I certainly would not advocate lying. > They didn't just ask if I could return a guilty verdict, either -- they asked if I would return a guilty verdict based on the law as explained by the judge if I felt that the facts supported the verdict. To be honest, I did answer yes to this one, although I did feel a twinge and my hesitation was palpable. "if I felt that the facts supported the verdict" gives you all the leeway you need to say "yes" without reservation.
jrs235 15y ago
> Question: "Do you have a problem with the law in question?" Unspoken thought: "In and of and by itself?" Spoken Answer: "No." Unspoken thought: "I may however have a problem with the application of the law." Question: "Would you be able to return a guilty verdict?" Spoken Answer: "Yes." Unspoken thought: "If the plantiff can shown what harm the defendant has caused to the non-consenting victim of accused crime." Update: If the application of the "law" would lead to an unconscionable injustice... such as punishing (or condemning or reprimanding) a human for something which has not harmed anyone against their will.