Jury Nullification

Do you except/believe in the concept? A great recent example would be the George Zimmerman trial. If we are to have a jury system in this country, is jury nullification justified?

I don't think the Zimmerman verdict was jury nullification. The prosecution's case was extremely thin.

As for the question, sure. Juries aren't robots.

I agree. I guess when it comes to Zimmerman, a lot of people still believe he was guilty. I guessing misspoke. I agree though, the prosecutor's case was thin. Anyway, the question still stands for the rest of WF.

I just want to clarify. I have no link, no article, just genuinely curious what people think.

Turning over a verdict because it's not popular with the public?

Fuck no. Unless there's a gross miscarriage of justice or some key evidence that was overlooked or not submitted, and we have a system in place for this.

The law is never more important than morality.

It certainly isn't even a close approximation of it.

My faith in Juries is still reeling from the OJ verdict!

He was guilty no doubt - but the state still has to prove their case! "Ten guilty men go free rather than etc.etc."
Zimmerman we know who killed who, but the exact chain of events/motivations/judgement of shooter and shootee were the question.
Thus the prosecution was forced into a case they knew they couldn't prove.
In the Brown case the prosecution would have a tough time too if you can find a jury that is smart enough to wrap their minds around 300 pounds of pissed off can be dangerous especially if trying to grab a cop's gun, and that six shots, twelve shot, one shot still means Brown dies.
My god the level of stupid from the people on the Ferguson streets is mind-boggling.

Yes, jury nullification is a vital component of our legal system.

This. If we wanted a system that only considered legalistic factors, we'd do as the French, and have a panel of magistrates decide cases. Fuck the French and their system IMO.

Not only that, but how many jury decisions are based on creative lawyering and suppression of evidence?

Actually, I could get behind a system of professional jurists. It would no longer be as much about "who has the most expensive lawyers" as professional jurists would see through lots of standard manipulative practices used by lawyers.

What would be the criteria for appointing these professional jurists?

I mean, France does have a lot of experience with these things.

The Zimmerman case wasn't jury nullification. If was simply acquittal.

Jury nullification is a valid option purposefully recognized by the founders. Today, acknowledging that you've heard of it is enough to get you kicked out of some jury pools. That is ridiculous. Taking away power from juries strengthens the ability of judges to run amok; it removes a check and balance.

I recognize that and in an earlier post I acknowledged my mistake and misspoke.

I need an apology from you.

Why can't you just read the third post in this thread?

I demand a personal apology, and 3 watermelons.

I apologize. Watermelons are...uh... in the mail.

That is a good question though I suspect we have little to fear regarding beheadings.

Perhaps a system where you had a pool of professional jurists for each case and 12 (plus 3 alternates) were randomly selected.

The requirement to be in the pool would be things like a professional degree, basic knowledge of legal procedures (easily established through simple testing), et cetera.

I'm sure other people could come up with a reasonable set of criteria.

Yes. Legal procedure knowledge is easily tested for.

Please, don't.

Well, for instance, if you're a lawyer and you advertise on television, you're ineligible.

Great. Tracking number, please?

Yeah. I used to despise them. But if you're successful enough to advertise your solo practice on tv or a bus or a big billboard then you're obviously doing something right.

12345678910

867-5309

I think all Americans could stand to be more educated about the law; however , professional lawyers, politicians, lobbyists and judges have made it nearly impossible for the common man to understand even the simplest of laws.

If you chose to represent yourself, you would need more time that a judge would grant to do the proper amount of research to do so.

Look at the ACA, even the politicians who supported it are slowly finding out how much of a cluster fuck it is and a lot of them are lawyers. How do you think professional jurists would fare? I would think these people would not hold law degrees and would also have regular jobs. Furthermore, how would they be impartial if the knew all the behind the scenes stuff?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but I doubt it would work in practice. Besides, a judge would probably not go along with it and prosecutors would likely win every time.

No. That's a lie. The truth is pretty much the opposite, but feel free to continue lying like the sack of shit we all know you to be.