Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jury Nullification

Expand Messages
  • Terry Leland
    I think its certainly an interesting topic. Surprised i havent seen it mentioned, but jury nullification has gotten a lot of press recently involving an
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I think its certainly an interesting topic. Surprised i havent seen it mentioned, but jury nullification has gotten a lot of press recently involving an african american professor or lawyer who insists that all african americans jurists must always acquit other african americans regardless of any evidence against them. This is based on his belief that no african american can EVER be treated fairly by the judicial process. Additionally he argues, since they have the historical and societal "cards" stacked against them... they should always be acquited. There've been a number of cases of this.
      That article mentioned a single juror who refused to find a woman guilty of hiring a hit man to kill her husband despite overwhelminging evidence. The juror "felt" the woman must have been insane, though nothing indicated this. Certainly there seems to be a trend for this country to have difficulty accepting that bad things/people do happen, and certainly would make jurists like this one feel better by dismissing cases of violence as insane, even when that is not even part of the defense.
      Anways, i'm not arguing for or against.... just wanted to broaden the scope of discussion to point out that there are much larger societal ramifications than just letting the occasional marijuana smoker off. Certainly it could be used as a form of social protest that has the potential to destabilize the whole legal system.
      Terry

      eddie_g_bradford <Eddie_G_Bradford@...> wrote: This an extremely interesting topic. Below is a mainstream story on
      it and it's crazy how against it they are and how they contend that
      it's illegal. This except especially blows my mind.

      "The right to trial by a fair and impartial jury is fundamental in
      America and rests on the belief that a jury may be the only shield
      between an individual and an overzealous prosecutor or a biased
      judge.

      But if the process is breaking down, if people are using it as a way
      to express a personal agenda, should the system be changed? To even
      address the question � which many court officials are reluctant to
      do � is to suggest that there is something wrong with a central
      component of American democracy."

      It's like they don't realize that people are using this ability
      to "protect individuals..."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/jury080299.htm



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      ---------------------------------
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.