Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Jury Nullification
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2
Tibro
Just so you know, it is well within judicial precedent to acquit a defendant as a juror sitting on a criminal case even if you think beyond reasonable doubt that the facts of the case demonstrate guilt. Jurors have the legal power not only to sit in judgement of the innocence or guilt of the defendant according to the evidence presented but may judge the applicability and appropriateness of the law itself, apropos of nothing more than their own feelings and privilege as a juror.

Think the war on drugs is immoral? Vote to acquit the innocuous pot smoker caught with his personal stash. Of course, there was also time when white racist jurors voted to nullify laws that didn't codify the difference they felt existed between homicide (unlawful) and lynching (justified social act).

Information about jury nullification isn't, and isn't about to become, a part of jury instructions. Nevertheless, any citizen with standing to sit on a jury has the power to effectively strike down laws on a case by case basis. Look it up. It's a powerful instrument of democracy.
Kirk
That is interesting, it's too bad more people don't realize that they are always making a choice.
By the time a defendant obtains a jury he's usually well beyond marijuana though, but not always.
Artemis
QUOTE
Of course, there was also time when white racist jurors voted to nullify laws that didn't codify the difference they felt existed between homicide (unlawful) and lynching (justified social act).

There was also a time when black racist jurors let a murdering black asshole go free for no other reason than to stick it to the white man.
QUOTE
Just so you know

If anybody in America didn't know prior to 1994, they learned that year.
L'Assommoir
Nullification happened many time with Prohibition cases.

and sometimes the jury drank the evidence.
Artemis
Now that's justice.
Tibro
Let's hope it wasn't blind justice.
Provenance
The Civil War did play an important role in shaping Constitutional law on jury nullification, http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawrev…_4/Bressler.pdf
Artemis
QUOTE
The Civil War did play an important role in nullification of the Constitution.

Fixed that for you.
Kirk
I was so relieved to hear that the officer in Ferguson did not shoot an UN-armed teen to death, in cold blood.
Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
Read that line out loud, that's how many bullets were fired, roughly half finding their target. It would be horrible to think he didn't have every one those coming to him.
The prosecutor was disturbing though, he said he hopes and prays this never happens again. Surely you want the police to protect themselves and us with perfect behavior like his, I mean, he did no wrong, right?
Leaves us very little wiggle room.
Jaded Prole
Thanks Kirk, you get to the nitty gritty. I was trained to subdue out of control and violent people without harming them when I worked in mental health. I know police receive physical training as well as having tasers, night sticks and pepper spray. The excuse that an unarmed teenager, already shot several times was "charging" was hardly adequate to justify being shot to death. What none asked the police chief is, Was the kid armed and displaying a weapon? and Are police trained to subdue unarmed (much less wounded) citizens with less than deadly force? Sadly, this is not an unusual incident. We've seen worse in Xit City.
Kirk
I have no idea, it's possible this young man had the first bullet coming to him, I can't even think of a reason for the other 11. It would be nice to see the whole story. After strong arming the old man at the convenience store maybe he tried to crawl into a cop car and take the cops gun away from him, that could get a person shot once.
Jaded Prole
I agree.
Tibro
Grand juries return whatever verdict the prosecution wishes to achieve. Overwhelmingly in excess of 99% of cases this means an indictment. The remaining instances are cases where the defendent is a member of law enforcement. It's as simple as that.
Artemis
Well over six feet tall and close to 300 pounds, the punk didn't have to be harmed to hurt a police officer or just about anybody else. He robbed a store and assaulted the owner. He was asked not to walk in the middle of the road and told the cop to fuck off. Only then did the cop recognize him as the robber for which he was looking. Outraged when his constitutional right to do just what the hell he wanted was questioned, the punk attacked the cop and tried to take his gun. One of the witnesses (a black person) before the grand jury confirmed the story of the cop in every detail and said he was sickened by the lies about the shooting being unprovoked, etc, and couldn't in good conscience let them go unchallenged. Many witnesses confirmed the story of the cop. The case was open and shut from the getgo. I give not one fuck how many times the punk was shot. One less piece of shit tying up the criminal justice system for the next 40 years.

Lt. Gov. of Missouri said yesterday that 53% of the people in prison in Missouri come from the same six or seven schools, including the boy in this case. What are they being taught? What did that boy's parents teach him? His mom doesn't believe the cop, says her boy wouldn't do that. Did she know he would rob a store? That's on video, not open to question. If not, she didn't really know her boy and isn't qualified to comment on what he would or would not do. If so, she should have known someone just might get tired of his shit and shoot him eventually.

Now, the town being burned, and the race baiters all the way up to the White House who incited it and then let it happen, that's something about which to get pissed off.
Kirk
"burn it down" said the dad.
Tibro
Any race baiting that's fueling unrest is, in my opinion, a strategic decision to keep the problem from escalating into something much worse. How's that, you ask? As long as the population dissects events as a racial problem then attention is diverted from examining circumstances as an effect of the powerlessness of the economically disenfranchised to the same protections afforded by law enforcement and other agencies to preserve and protect the wealth of more advantaged communities. Officers of the law acting as vigilantes gains better traction in the court of popular opinion when the divide is racial rather than economic.

I wasn't there, I have no idea whether "the case was open and shut from the getgo" from an evidentiary point of law. The lack of indictment does go against what one would expect from the statistical outcome of grand jury cases though. Until you take into account the fact of the defendant being a member of law enforcement. I also believe that if the "piece of shit" who was shot and killed, all other factors being equal, from race, physique, petty theft and the rest, had been well-heeled and wealthy the number of shots fired and the lethal result would have been cast in an entirely different light. I may be wrong, it's a moot point.
Jaded Prole
A good and informed analysis. As the economy has not recovered (except at the very top) and poverty becomes more widespread and endemic, the police have been militarized and the national security apparatus expanded. Poverty, and especially homelessness have become more criminalized. Racism certainly continues and is used to further divide and dis-empower. One thing I noted watching the protests in Ferguson though was that protesters were a diverse group who recognized that, though cop culture is racist, the problem is one more rooted in class than in race.
Kirk

"Kill the landlord!"
Kirk
kill the landlord
Kirk
I feel the same about both, copper and blue, little difference behind the color
Shooter or shot
next time it could be you.
Artemis
QUOTE
Any race baiting that's fueling unrest is, in my opinion, a strategic decision to keep the problem from escalating into something much worse.


If by "something much worse" you mean losing more elections, you're right. They're buying votes, nothing more and nothing less.

QUOTE
economically disenfranchised


Horseshit. Nobody took a fucking thing away from those people, unless you count the aforementioned schools, and that's the federal government interfering (again) in matters over which the Constitution gives it no say. Teachers Unions don't help, either.
QUOTE

same protections afforded by law enforcement and other agencies to preserve and protect the wealth of more advantaged communities.


Yeah, that's why the cop was combing a slum for a guy who robbed a Korean grocery, because he's in the service of the fat cats.
QUOTE

I wasn't there, I have no idea whether "the case was open and shut from the getgo" from an evidentiary point of law.


The grand jury wasn't there either. Hearing the evidence they heard is what led me to the same conclusion they reached, and to the conclusion that there could have been no other fair outcome. Therefore, open and shut from the getgo.

QUOTE
The lack of indictment does go against what one would expect from the statistical outcome of grand jury cases though. Until you take into account the fact of the defendant being a member of law enforcement. I also believe that if the "piece of shit" who was shot and killed, all other factors being equal, from race, physique, petty theft and the rest, had been well-heeled and wealthy the number of shots fired and the lethal result would have been cast in an entirely different light. I may be wrong, it's a moot point.


Where do you get this shit? Of course the burden of proof is going to be heavier when a cop is involved, because they are empowered by we the people to go around doing things we aren't allowed to do. It goes with the territory. And save the hypothetical bullshit. If he had been wealthy, either black or white, he wouldn't have robbed the store. But the asshole didn't rob the store because he was poor. He robbed it because he believed he was entitled to rob it. He was wrong. Dead wrong.
Tibro
Strange tactic for buying votes. The numbers really haven't turned in the Demonkrats favor in terms of the perception of race relations since electing the first haff-black prezident. Or maybe your conceding that the Repugnantcan'ts haven't had a viable inroad with minority groups since ol' Abe. I can't see fomenting racial unrest as a productive path for enhancing voter perceptions of the dems. And certainly far less effective than the Kock brothers strategy of buying grubbermint by direct investment. Afterall, money is speech and corporations are people, politicians can hear who's loudest.

In a grand jury hearing it's usually the prosecutor who's loudest. It's not much more than a formality, it's not meant to prove guilt, only that a case can be made to take the issue in front of a trial jury. The prosecutor's job is to prosecute cases, it's what we pay him to do. Never mind that a significant proportion of criminal cases never make it to trial anymore, prosecutors actually do quite well for themselves racking up convictions by staying out of court. But their record in front of grand juries is even better:
QUOTE
In 1985, the New York Daily News quoted former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler as saying that if they so desired, a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich'.

It doesn't seem like an awful lot has changed decades later, with Five Thirty Eight pointing out today that, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 162,000 federal cases US attorneys prosecuted in 2010 (the most recent year data was released for), grand juries only declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

And if you weren't sitting on the grand jury then you weren't there to weigh the evidence as presented. The court of public opinion is a different process where the media is the loudest voice. So much depends on the actual presentation and the circumstances surrounding that presentation. A prosecutor can "data dump" the evidence, dry and dull, on a grand jury in a show of going through the motions. But without massaging the meaning of the raw data in a stand-up performance before the jury in a real effort to obtain the indictment it's a lost cause. Reading or watching the news and discussing it with a sympathetic friend is hardly comparable to sitting in the jury box in a courtroom. You weren't there and neither was I. And evidence at the scene wasn't all properly handled and secured to start with.

The way I see it, when someone guns down Jamie Dimon, chairman, president and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase, who doesn't need to steal but nevertheless feels entitled to rob from anyone whose life and money comes in contact with the banking industry, then maybe I'll feel there's some justice in this world. The way he throws his weight around he makes a 6' 300lb man look puny. Insignificant. Harmless even. Michael Brown was a fly speck compared to Jamie Dimon. That's what enfranchisement can do for a fuckwad. Equally so, it's what disenfranchisement will do for a fuckwad. And you can tell that to law enforcement, but I think they already know. Thug cops wind up policing thuggish districts, not assigned to white collar crime units.
Kirk
Tibro, you are getting really close to the crux of the problem. The problem is, if you ever talked a cop into arresting the real criminals, the criminal would not run and get shot, he would turn himself in and bribe the judge.
Those bastards stole more from all the people I know than any honest thug ever could.
You left out the part where this prosecutor heads a defense fund and then the fund handed the cop $400,000 to pay for his defense, is that legal? backstoppers
The thing is, the trial is over, I hated watching O.J. Simpson being tried in the court of public opinion and I don't like watching this, it's not healthy, the jury is out, that's enough for me.
It's not ok for a banker to rob me, it's not okay to riot, even though I understand the riot, it is no more helpful than the banker, they both damage the collective mojo and the real estate . I wanted to riot too but I had too work that day.
Jaded Prole
The problem with riots is they need to consider better targets. Tibro is right, as are you. This case is symptomatic of much larger problems. What needs to be examined are root causes including cop culture, racism, and economic and legal inequality. We live in a corrupt system of thievery. Big crooks rule, are above the law and even bailed out at public expense. Meanwhile a militarized police state grows and prisons overflow with poor folks.


Vive jean valjean
Artemis
Evidence at the scene? Eyewitnesses trump evidence every time. There were eyewitnesses.
Of course there are wealthy people who steal more than a gang of Michael Browns could carry on a freight train, but that's got nothing to do with this case. I never heard of Dimon, and I'm willing to bet nobody who was looting and burning in Ferguson did, either. In any case, being pissed off at anything is not a license to commit crimes. The cop did what he had to do, the prosecutor did the right thing, and a bunch of idiots burned down their own neighborhood and thereby deprived many of their neighbors of what little they had. If the decision had gone the other way, some of it would have been burned in "celebration" by opportunists who never gave a rat's ass about Brown. People in "deprived" areas around the U.S. kill each other every week by the score. No outrage until a cop kills one. What's up with that?
QUOTE
I wanted to riot too but I had to work that day.

Now that's insightful, I kid you not.
Jaded Prole
Not really, massive un and underemplyment aside, people take off to participate in political actions of different kinds and many feel like they have nothing left to lose. As for facts and "grand juries, I like this analysis.
Artemis
QUOTE
Prosecutors never asked Wilson why he did not attempt to drive away while Brown was allegedly reaching through his vehicle window

Yeah, that's insightful. Might as well not even have cops if that's what they're going to do.

Take off, that's funny. Take off from what? Looting would be the full time occupation of criminally-inclined opportunists if they thought they could get away with it every day.

But I don't like arguing with you guys, so I'm done.
Tibro
Would it be just too fucking ironic to pass legislation that funded bootstraps for all the unfortunate bastards that don't have any? Nah, it's their own fucking fault for not having them. They oughta just man up and realize it's their lot to do without.

Damn you Eli Whitney.
Artemis
Their priorities are their own fault.
Money is poured into education, we and they are just not getting the results that we and they deserve.
Schools should be able to succeed or fail on their own merit, like any business. Privatize them all and fund them judiciously, selectively, and carefully with public money. Raise up a whole crop of Elis, year after year.

Tibro
You know, if we privatized public education to the same profit-making folks running our prisons, I'd buy stock. That's efficiency in action.
Jaded Prole
QUOTE(Tibro @ Dec 1 2014, 03:35 PM) *

Would it be just too fucking ironic to pass legislation that funded bootstraps for all the unfortunate bastards that don't have any? Nah, it's their own fucking fault for not having them. They oughta just man up and realize it's their lot to do without.



Actually a minimum income tied to the cost of living is a good idea. We could eliminate much of (what's left) of a safety net and people would spend that money on basics feeding the economy. It's trickle up economics but it would lessen crime, increase part-time employment spreading work around and encourage small enterprise.
Artemis
Schools vs. prison, hardly a worthwhile comparison.
But I said I'd shut up, so put away your poking stick.

Artemis
QUOTE
Actually a minimum income tied to the cost of living is a good idea.

No, it's not. Free enterprise is a good idea. But I do favor doing away with income tax in favor of a tax on consumption of goods and some services. Let those who use the most pay the most.
Tibro
Free enterprise is a good idea. So are regulations. Onacuz you know there's always gonna be yahoos who figure out a way to commoditize something like subprime loans in a form that no one will recognize or question to make a dishonest profit off of someone else's good will. Or ignorance. Or inadequate education. Or christian values. Whatever you want to call it. Onacuz there's one born every minute, and it's not always their fault for the circumstances they're born into.
Artemis
Indeed.
Hillbilly
One thing's for sure. They don't shoot to subdue anymore. They shoot to kill ya dead'rn hell. They pull a pistol on you nowadays, they dont holster it til it's empty.
Tibro
QUOTE
Schools vs. prison, hardly a worthwhile continuum.

And yet some people feel reassured by its seeming inevitability, and even strive for it.
G&C
QUOTE
They don't shoot to subdue anymore.


There is and has never been such a thing outside of Hollywood.
Police are taught as I was in the USMC, Shoot until the threat is no longer. It's the same thing that is taught in any self defense class worth taking.
When they drop, I stop.



You don't want to get shot, don't do stupid shit that puts you in such a situation.

End of Story.
Jaded Prole
Darn tootin! Like being in the wrong place at the wrong time or looking suspicious (read black or brown). When police see everyone else as "the enemy" we all are. That's why the military and the police are different organizations operating under different rules.

As for "free enterprise," it has its limits. Some things should be commodities. Some things should not. The minimum income insures a bottom threshold of survival because, unlike the past, one cannot just homestead and live of the land and being able to live is a basic right. Having more than that should still require personal effort. We could also have a maximum wage to address the disease of hoarding that creates poverty in its wake. Nobody needs a billion dollars and there are better goals in life than sitting on an unspendably large fortune.
Jack Batemaster
IPB ImageIPB Image

IPB ImageIPB Image
Jack Batemaster
QUOTE(G et C @ Dec 2 2014, 07:33 AM) *

…do stupid shit that puts you in such a situation.

End of Story.

IPB Image
Tibro
QUOTE(G&C @ Dec 2 2014, 04:33 PM) *

Police are taught as I was in the USMC, Shoot until the threat is no longer. It's the same thing that is taught in any self defense class worth taking.
When they drop, I stop.

I'm curious, were you trained as an MP whose job would require apprehension of "friendlies" (presumably friendlies with lethal training, but friendlies none-the-less) or strictly as a battlefield combatant facing enemy fire? Not to compare stun apples with fragmentation oranges.
Kirk
No law enforcement agency ever taught to wound, no warning shots either, friendly or not, if you are shooting you are to aim for the center of the target and continue firing until there is zero threat. There are almost no exceptions to this rule.
Tibro
I'm not talking about warning shots or shooting to wound, not even I think those are appropriate techniques to teach someone to use in situations of imminent violence and threat. But there is the idea of proportional response, and I don't see that as identical in a combat situation vs. law enforcement. Or even necessarily applicable in both circumstances.

Officer Wilson stated in his testimony that he didn't believe Brown had a firearm, yet he fired his gun at him 12 times. Is that proportional?
Artemis
Twelve is a full magazine (at least it is for my pistol).
Could be that he emptied it in panic - just shot until the gun was empty.
It's not like he brought the guy down with the first shot and then stood over him and riddled him just because he could - at least I've not heard anything to that effect.
Humans aren't equally easy to stop with a bullet.
I remember reading that the U.S. Marines went to the .45 caliber pistol after the .38 they were using proved ineffective at stopping Moros.
If the suspect was knocked down by any given shot, I agree there was no reason to shoot again if he didn't get up, but it's not exactly a stop and think situation (I mean, adrenaline rush is in the driver's seat), especially for a guy who had never been in such a situation before.
And the fact that the suspect doesn't have a gun doesn't mean much when he's that big and fast and had tried already (so the cop said) to take the cop's gun.
In any case, who rushes at a cop with a gun, or refuses to cease and desist when that cop tells him to? Only a fool.
QUOTE
wrong place at the wrong time

I really hate that phrase. Is there a right time to be at the wrong place? Place and time are inseparable, two sides of a coin. Einstein could probably write that in a formula on a blackboard, not that I would understand it. If anybody can prove to me that he's been in more than one place at one given time, I'll retract what I said.
G&C
QUOTE(Tibro @ Dec 3 2014, 03:51 AM) *

QUOTE(G&C @ Dec 2 2014, 04:33 PM) *

Police are taught as I was in the USMC, Shoot until the threat is no longer. It's the same thing that is taught in any self defense class worth taking.
When they drop, I stop.

I'm curious, were you trained as an MP whose job would require apprehension of "friendlies" (presumably friendlies with lethal training, but friendlies none-the-less) or strictly as a battlefield combatant facing enemy fire? Not to compare stun apples with fragmentation oranges.

No threat is friendly.
Artemis
I think he's asking if the training of an MP involves techniques for subduing a fellow GI that are different from those used in combat against enemies, or do they apply combat techniques against any and all. He's assuming, as do I, that cop behavior and solider behavior are two different things, but what happens when cop and solider are the same person? Reasonable question.
Tibro
QUOTE
In any case, who rushes at a cop with a gun, or refuses to cease and desist when that cop tells him to?

Indeed. Not saying it didn't happen that way, but it does stretch credulity. Enough to send it to a jury trial for closer examination and cross-examination, if you were to seat me.
G&C
I'm no police.
Hillbilly
QUOTE(Kirk @ Dec 3 2014, 07:46 AM)
if you are shooting you are to aim for the center of the target and continue firing until there is zero threat. There are almost no exceptions to this rule.
Does anybody remember the story of Milton Hall in 2012? He was definitely no exception. To any of them. And really not that much of a threat, to what? Six officers with weapons drawn, twenty feet away, and a K9 unit?

A Mother's Mission: The Shooting of Milton Hall (…: http://youtu.be/2Iigvm5iPkU

Were there riots over him? No, he was just some crazy homeless person. Kinda like that old boy in the park in New Mexico.
Yeah, I sure keep my nose clean nowadays. But I've seen firsthand how the power trip can turn real ugly in a quick minute. I'm all for the cameras on officers. If they can make sure they stay on when they're supposed to be on.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.