3 ms·

I'm a little disappointed that the article doesn't mention a serious practical impediment to nullification - the "voir dire" process of juror selection. They as

by Qo 15y ago

I'm a little disappointed that the article doesn't mention a serious practical impediment to nullification - the "voir dire" process of juror selection. They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?" You are 100% within your rights to answer no - they'll excuse you from the jury. If you say "yes", however, but you mean "no", then you have committed perjury. You won't get caught if you're crafty about it, but it's still a relevant detail. A more accurate title might have been: "People can do whatever they want as long as they're OK going to jail if they get caught"

eridius 15y ago
Wouldn't it only be perjury if you had already decided to nullify when you were asked the question?
- Qo 15y ago
  Probably. If they charge you, are you comfortable with that as your defense?
  - Cadsby 15y ago
    Very unlikely this would occur. Jury deliberations are considered sacrosanct in American jurence prudence. You are under no obligation to explain your reasoning to anyone when deciding a verdict. And courts have been traditionally very wary of allowing prosecutors to delve too deeply into them to go on fishing expeditions unless a very specific procedure has been shown to have been violated. The prosecution would essentially have to read your mind to demonstrate that you somehow "lied" in answering the questions during jury selection, which is why what you're describing virtually never happens. And there's always the plausible defense that you simply changed your mind as the trial unfolded.
    - Qo 15y ago
      This sounds reasonable - but doesn't refute my main point - that nullification, while not a criminal act, can often not be applied without first committing a separate criminal act, and that one should be aware of this fact and take appropriate precautions.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
I answered that I would be willing to vote guilty if the law and the facts supported such a verdict. This is absolutely true, and I am free to nullify (without having lied) if I find the law doesn't support such a verdict. I'm wondering though what happened to the guy in NY (came to the comments here hoping someone had tracked that down). He was arraigned in Feb of this year.
- Qo 15y ago
  Interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the fact that the law doesn't support a certain verdict obviate the need for nullification?
gnaritas 15y ago
> They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?" I've done jury duty, they ask me no such thing.

by Qo 15y ago

eridius 15y ago

Wouldn't it only be perjury if you had already decided to nullify when you were asked the question?

Qo 15y ago
Probably. If they charge you, are you comfortable with that as your defense?
- Cadsby 15y ago
  Very unlikely this would occur. Jury deliberations are considered sacrosanct in American jurence prudence. You are under no obligation to explain your reasoning to anyone when deciding a verdict. And courts have been traditionally very wary of allowing prosecutors to delve too deeply into them to go on fishing expeditions unless a very specific procedure has been shown to have been violated. The prosecution would essentially have to read your mind to demonstrate that you somehow "lied" in answering the questions during jury selection, which is why what you're describing virtually never happens. And there's always the plausible defense that you simply changed your mind as the trial unfolded.
  - Qo 15y ago
    This sounds reasonable - but doesn't refute my main point - that nullification, while not a criminal act, can often not be applied without first committing a separate criminal act, and that one should be aware of this fact and take appropriate precautions.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

I answered that I would be willing to vote guilty if the law and the facts supported such a verdict. This is absolutely true, and I am free to nullify (without having lied) if I find the law doesn't support such a verdict. I'm wondering though what happened to the guy in NY (came to the comments here hoping someone had tracked that down). He was arraigned in Feb of this year.

Qo 15y ago
Interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the fact that the law doesn't support a certain verdict obviate the need for nullification?

gnaritas 15y ago

> They ask you a series of questions, one of them usually being "Will you apply the law as I explain it to you?" I've done jury duty, they ask me no such thing.