Timeline for Can a judge legally forbid a jury from Nullifying a verdict if they ask him about it before rendering a verdict
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2020 at 18:02 | history | edited | feetwet♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Dec 28, 2020 at 18:28 | vote | accept | dsollen | ||
| Dec 26, 2020 at 16:27 | comment | added | Kaithar | Wait... Jury tampering by a jury member is "undue influence", right? Simply informing the other jury members that it exists, without trying force others to agree, shouldn't meet the bar of undue influence? Then again, I'm also confused about how notions related to (limited) deliberation secrecy and directed verdict are being side stepped. Not arguing that a juror can't be dismissed for suggest it though, should another juror tell the judge anyway. | |
| Dec 26, 2020 at 3:09 | history | edited | robertspierre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 231 characters in body
|
| Dec 26, 2020 at 3:08 | comment | added | robertspierre | @Hasse1987 sorry, that was a factual error of me. "jury nullification" is certainly not a right of the defendant. It is an option of the jury. | |
| Dec 25, 2020 at 23:45 | comment | added | Hasse1987 | "jury nullification is still a right". No, jury nullification is not itself a right, quite the opposite. If it leaks that a juror plans to nullify, ie, the juror understands the law and does not intend to follow it in rendering a verdict, that would usually lead to removal, or contempt. What you probably mean is that it is usually not possible to enforce a rule against jury nullification, which is not the same as saying it is a right, or even legal. | |
| Dec 25, 2020 at 17:38 | comment | added | Matt | "They can face repercussions if they lie in voir dire and say that they will follow the law as given to them no matter what" How does this work? Isnt it up to the jury to decide guilty vs not guilty? If the jury returns "not guilty" who gets to say "yeah, but we all know he was guilty so you lied under oath"? The jury doesnt justify their decision. | |
| Dec 25, 2020 at 7:38 | comment | added | robertspierre | @zibadawatimmy jury nullification is indeed derived from forbidding double jeopardy + jurors cannot be held liable for an "erroneous" verdict. To me it is clear that when the founding fathers said "jury trial", this would include jury nullification in it. Before independence, jury nullification was very important in not convicting colony inhabitants for not paying taxes to Britain. But zibadawa is right that you can go to jail if you suggest jury nullification for "tampering with the jury". | |
| Dec 25, 2020 at 7:28 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @TiwaAina Despite how raffaem characterizes it, jury nullification isn't a "right", it's a loophole derived from other protections; double jeopardy protections in particular, as it has been held that reconsidering an apparent jury nullification is a new jeopardy (except in rare circumstances, such as if the defendant saw fit to fix the verdict by bribing judge/jurors, say, in which case the first jeopardy was a figment). It's not considered a substantive and impactful error of law to cut off loophole abuse. Indeed it's considered a subversion of law to encourage it. | |
| Dec 25, 2020 at 7:17 | comment | added | actinidia | "If the jury convicts, this false information by the judge is generally deemed a harmless error on appeal, and the conviction is upheld." Why is this so, considering that the false information was the difference between a guilty/not guilty decision? | |
| Dec 24, 2020 at 17:17 | history | answered | robertspierre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |