4 ms·

As others in this thread point out, this is not nullification. Nullification is a different thing and grand juries cannot do it.

john01dav 1mo ago
Why can't grand juries do it? I thought that it's when juries intentionally rule against what the law says, while saying otherwise, as a consequence of juries not being able to be penalized for their ruling. I don't seen any reason that the same can't happen with a grand jury. A web search comes up with articles saying that it's more common with non-grand juries, but that's not the same as "cannot do it", while they also speak about a prosecutor's ability to re-indict, but that still doesn't guarantee them a charge.
- detourdog 1mo ago
  It may have to do with the state of accusations. Pre-grand jury there is no evidence of a crime. Once a grand jury rules with the prosecutor a crime has been defined.
- woodruffw 1mo ago
  Nullification is based on a contradiction in terms: juries cannot be punished for the judgments they render, and prosecutors may not re-try a case to obtain their preferred outcome (“double jeopardy”). With a grand jury, the second term doesn’t apply: the grand jury’s decision doesn’t prevent a second indictment. So in other words: grand juries can choose to render “faithless” decisions, but they can’t nullify a case in the sense that matters.
Sohcahtoa82 1mo ago
> Nullification is a different thing and grand juries cannot do it. It might not fit the textbook definition of jury nullification, but it would absolutely fit the spirit of the definition. If the prosecution presents nearly irrefutable proof that the Ohio man destroyed the camera (Which from what I've heard is the case), but the grand jury declined to indict anyway because they're vehemently against Flock cameras and want to stick it to the government, then as far as I'm concerned, that's nullification.
- woodruffw 1mo ago
  It doesn’t fit the spirit, because it doesn’t have the legal qualities of nullification. In particular, the prosecutor can choose to empanel a new grand jury and seek a new indictment on the exact same charge.
  - anthonyrstevens 1mo ago
    That's a technical distinction over which the original jurors have no control. I think the scenario described in GP exactly meets the spirit of nullification.
    - woodruffw 1mo ago
      The entire point is that they have no control! That’s what makes it not nullification. Edit: to be clear, the essential quality of nullification is that it’s the product of a contradiction between two unassailable principles in our legal system. Without that contradiction, which does not exist in a grand jury context, a juror’s decision is not nullifying. It’s just a decision.
- Plont 1mo ago
  I get what you mean, but using a word with a very specific meaning in a legal context to mean something else that's similar and likewise in a legal context, but with a more vague definition, will just create confusion. This kind of confusion in a legal context can cause major problems for people when they're trying to understand the law as it applies to their case. I don't think calling this nullification even adds any "spirit" meaning that isn't already present in "the grand jury declined to indict". These two things can be similar, but the details matter here.

john01dav 1mo ago

Why can't grand juries do it? I thought that it's when juries intentionally rule against what the law says, while saying otherwise, as a consequence of juries not being able to be penalized for their ruling. I don't seen any reason that the same can't happen with a grand jury. A web search comes up with articles saying that it's more common with non-grand juries, but that's not the same as "cannot do it", while they also speak about a prosecutor's ability to re-indict, but that still doesn't guarantee them a charge.

detourdog 1mo ago
It may have to do with the state of accusations. Pre-grand jury there is no evidence of a crime. Once a grand jury rules with the prosecutor a crime has been defined.
woodruffw 1mo ago
Nullification is based on a contradiction in terms: juries cannot be punished for the judgments they render, and prosecutors may not re-try a case to obtain their preferred outcome (“double jeopardy”). With a grand jury, the second term doesn’t apply: the grand jury’s decision doesn’t prevent a second indictment. So in other words: grand juries can choose to render “faithless” decisions, but they can’t nullify a case in the sense that matters.

Sohcahtoa82 1mo ago

> Nullification is a different thing and grand juries cannot do it. It might not fit the textbook definition of jury nullification, but it would absolutely fit the spirit of the definition. If the prosecution presents nearly irrefutable proof that the Ohio man destroyed the camera (Which from what I've heard is the case), but the grand jury declined to indict anyway because they're vehemently against Flock cameras and want to stick it to the government, then as far as I'm concerned, that's nullification.

woodruffw 1mo ago
It doesn’t fit the spirit, because it doesn’t have the legal qualities of nullification. In particular, the prosecutor can choose to empanel a new grand jury and seek a new indictment on the exact same charge.
- anthonyrstevens 1mo ago
  That's a technical distinction over which the original jurors have no control. I think the scenario described in GP exactly meets the spirit of nullification.
  - woodruffw 1mo ago
    The entire point is that they have no control! That’s what makes it not nullification. Edit: to be clear, the essential quality of nullification is that it’s the product of a contradiction between two unassailable principles in our legal system. Without that contradiction, which does not exist in a grand jury context, a juror’s decision is not nullifying. It’s just a decision.
Plont 1mo ago
I get what you mean, but using a word with a very specific meaning in a legal context to mean something else that's similar and likewise in a legal context, but with a more vague definition, will just create confusion. This kind of confusion in a legal context can cause major problems for people when they're trying to understand the law as it applies to their case. I don't think calling this nullification even adds any "spirit" meaning that isn't already present in "the grand jury declined to indict". These two things can be similar, but the details matter here.