Jury Nullification

[Colpy]

Strictly speaking, you're quite right, except maybe it's only 4 years of law school, but it's clear from that excellent link #jaun provided that jurors can choose not to apply the law if it offends their consciences. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, for instance, was performing abortions at a time when it was clearly illegal to do so, he was obviously guilty according to the letter of the law, but more than one jury would not convict him. I'm sure any thoughtful lawyer or judge would agree that the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and justice, are not the same thing. Juries are about justice, the judgement of our fellow citizens, and no judge is entitled to order a jury to return a particular verdict.

This is exactly where I was trying to go.

Not only did a jury refuse to convict Mortengaler when he was obviously guilty under the law (he admitted he did it, but pleaded "not guilty") a judge overturned the jury's verdict, and found Mortengaler guilty.

This was of course appealed, and the Supreme Court upheld the jury's right to nullify the law.........and restored the jury's "not guilty" finding........

So to tell a jury "acquittal is not an option" is outrageous..........

 

[Colpy]

apply justice according to Canadian law not their own law.

The jury's law IS Canadian law.......that is why we have juries.

 

[L Gilbert]

Hmmm. Last I heard, the Criminal Code was the law, not Joe Lunchbucket, jury member.

 

[Kreskin]

The jury's law IS Canadian law.......that is why we have juries.

No it isn't the law. If it is a criminal proceeding the Canadian Criminal Code is the law. A jury can decide whatever it wants to but to be relevant and not a complete waste of taxpayers there is an expectation that Canadian law be applied. A judge can explain the law and say "if you find that this and this and this occured and it was done under this and that intent, circumstances etc..here's the law..apply it. On the other hand if it isn't clear if this or that happened etc here's how you apply that." If that didn't happen you'd have a bunch of nuts applying bs. The jury can then decide what it wants but the judge can explain to them how they should interpret the law and apply it in the courts.

 

[Colpy]

Hmmm. Last I heard, the Criminal Code was the law, not Joe Lunchbucket, jury member.

Ah, but if Joe Lunchbucket, with the agreement of 11 other jurors, decides to ignore the law, or decides the law should not apply, or decides the law is unjust, they are perfectly within their rights to acquit a person who is obviously "guilty" under the letter of the law.

As they did with Mortengaler, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Therefore they COULD find the gentleman who shot his daughter's drug dealing boyfriend "not guilty". To instruct the jury that "acquittal is not an option" is to ignore the rights of the accused, established in a field in England in 1215.

The jury need not explain them selves. They could have decided the deceased contacted lead poisoning by accident.......the fact it was delivered at velocity notwithstanding. They don't need to explain themselves......they ARE the law.

In fact, I believe it is illegal for a jury to talk about what went on in the jury room..........

 

[Colpy]

No it isn't the law. If it is a criminal proceeding the Canadian Criminal Code is the law. A jury can decide whatever it wants to but to be relevant and not a complete waste of taxpayers there is an expectation that Canadian law be applied. A judge can explain the law and say "if you find that this and this and this occured and it was done under this and that intent, circumstances etc..here's the law..apply it. On the other hand if it isn't clear if this or that happened etc here's how you apply that." If that didn't happen you'd have a bunch of nuts applying bs. The jury can then decide what it wants but the judge can explain to them how they should interpret the law and apply it in the courts.

And the law is that a jury can ignore the law, and the judge........simple as that.

For a judge to instruct them NOT to find a certain way is a travesty.

 

[Kreskin]

If I understand the Morgantaler decision in the supreme court correctly they ruled not in support of rogue juries but debated heatly the constitutional right of section 251 of the canadian criminal code. In fact this was noted in the decision:

Per Curiam: In a trial before judge and jury, the judge's role is to state the law and the jury's role is to apply that law to the facts of the case. To encourage a jury to ignore a law it does not like could not only lead to gross inequities but could also irresponsibly disturb the balance of the criminal law system. It was quite simply wrong to say to the jury that if they did not like the law they need not enforce it. Such practice, if commonly adopted, would undermine and place at risk the whole jury system.

 

[Colpy]

Ah yes......but they had to uphold the jury's right to find Mortengaler "not guilty", despite the fact they didn't like it. You should remember Supreme Court justices are judges appointed by the state. They don't like any challenge to their omnipotence in the courtroom...........nor do they like challenges to the solid reality of the law......justice has nothing to do with it. That is the job of the jury.

Back in 1215, the entire reason for the creation of juries was a check on the power of the state......the idea being that the state could not enforce unjust laws as the law had to be vetted by twelve individuals.

 

[Kreskin]

If you need a cure for insomnia here's the case http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html . I see very little said about the jury. The argument is primarily constitutional wrangling about the right to an abortion.

 

[Kreskin]

My point on the Morgantaler case is if the supreme court did not find the law unconstitutional it wouldn't matter how that jury decided. The law would apply, not the personal opinions of what a jury thinks the law should be.

 

[Colpy]

Well, I wasn't trying to get into the specifics of the case mentioned in my first post........but I just read the details in the Globe and Mail.

The daughter was 16 at the time, and newly drug addicted, she moved in with the 24 year old drug dealer and body builder.

Our hero, her father, went to fetch her, said arsehole moved to interfere, the father fired 10 shots at the unarmed man, hitting him five times.

Justice would be a full acquittal, with the return of his weapon on the condition he take shooting lessons.

IMHO.

I'd train him for free.

You've probably figured out by now that I will never be on a jury.

 

[karrie]

witnesses at his trial stated that he had planned to go and kill the man. he had discussed 'blowing his head off' in past conversations, and it raises serious doubt that he went there with any other intent. that would make it premeditated murder of a man for wronging your daughter or family in some way.... still doesn't sound acquittable as far as basic law is concerned.

Well, I wasn't trying to get into the specifics of the case mentioned in my first post........but I just read the details in the Globe and Mail.

The daughter was 16 at the time, and newly drug addicted, she moved in with the 24 year old drug dealer and body builder.

Our hero, her father, went to fetch her, said arsehole moved to interfere, the father fired 10 shots at the unarmed man, hitting him five times.

Justice would be a full acquittal, with the return of his weapon on the condition he take shooting lessons.

IMHO.

I'd train him for free.

You've probably figured out by now that I will never be on a jury.

 

[Colpy]

witnesses at his trial stated that he had planned to go and kill the man. he had discussed 'blowing his head off' in past conversations, and it raises serious doubt that he went there with any other intent. that would make it premeditated murder of a man for wronging your daughter or family in some way.... still doesn't sound acquittable as far as basic law is concerned.

Yeah, well, I've always thought the "cowboy defense" should be enshrined in law.

The "cowboy defense"?

You know......"he needed killin'".

 

[karrie]

Yeah, well, I've always thought the "cowboy defense" should be enshrined in law.

The "cowboy defense"?

You know......"he needed killin'".

Ah, the law wherein a man would be allowed to shoot down the man who shot his son you mean?

Because most people I know, have someone they think "needs killin' "

 

[L Gilbert]

Ah, but if Joe Lunchbucket, with the agreement of 11 other jurors, decides to ignore the law, or decides the law should not apply, or decides the law is unjust, they are perfectly within their rights to acquit a person who is obviously "guilty" under the letter of the law.

And that decision can be overturned in appelate court.. Besides, it's a rare occurrence for that to happen. Juries can also make recommendations to judges, but they can't arbitrarily make up their own laws. The laws set out in the Criminal Cose is THE law. Black and white. People can only apply what's in there. Or not.

The jury need not explain them selves. They could have decided the deceased contacted lead poisoning by accident.......the fact it was delivered at velocity notwithstanding. They don't need to explain themselves......they ARE the law.

In fact, I believe it is illegal for a jury to talk about what went on in the jury room..........

They are NOT the law, they are applicators of it, same as judges. Laws are in the criminal code. Applications of the law is up to the appropriate people, but they do NOT arbitrarily delete laws and make up their own. But I agree that the judges mandate is to instruct the jury as to what the law is, not how to apply it.
Are you the paint when you want to change colors in your house? No. You are only the applicator of the paint. After you have the bucket of paint you cannot change tint, hue, etc. ; you can only apply it.

 

[L Gilbert]

Needs killin'? Clifford Olson and Willie Pickton, IMO

 

[Colpy]

for the naysayers on the subject of jury nullification of the law:

http://juror.ca/allan_young.htm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=603f8a29-fe42-4db7-9075-8f7b6debd35f&k=92733

 

[Kreskin]

for the naysayers on the subject of jury nullification of the law:

http://juror.ca/allan_young.htm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=603f8a29-fe42-4db7-9075-8f7b6debd35f&k=92733

That case was brought up earlier. In reality this is more procedural wrangling than anything. The next judge won't say "convict". He'll say what they do the rest of the time - tell a jury what the defense of necessity is and whether or not it applies. Pretty much the same thing but leaves the jury feeling they still have a decision to make.

 

[Tonington]

So he was sentenced today to 10 years in jail for second degree murder.

 

[Colpy]

So he was sentenced today to 10 years in jail for second degree murder.

I saw that......an appeal will probably be in the works as the jury was instructed improperly.

Personally, I'd have voted for acquittal.