Slightly Stoopid

Random, as your signature you tell us to look into Jury Nullification. I did look it up, and got a pretty good idea what it is about. I know it changes the Jurors views away from the Law, and by using Jury Nullification they use thier own judgement in what the right thing would be to do.

However, all the descriptions were hard to follow, and i was hoping for a good clear concise breifing How can you go about using Jury Nullification and what exactly do the jurors do??

Also Nightshift and Slate, you may know about this too, and i could use all the info i can get

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

Niteshift

Probably the simplest way I can explain it is:

Juries are instructed to follow the law, not their personal feelings. The idea of jury nullification relies on the jury voting with their heart or conscience, rather than doing what they have been instructed.

You'll usually only see it in certain types of trials. Like a mother who plans, then kills a guy who molested her child. The jury, collectively, would be saying "she may have broken the law, but we don't blame her for doing it."

Now, how does this apply to mj law? The theory is that 6 jurors will somehow decide that the law is wrong and that even though you are in possession of mj, you should not be convicted.

Personally, I think that's a really loooooong shot. If you can actually pull it off, stop buying lottery tickets, because you used a lifetime's amount of luck.

Slightly Stoopid

LOL

Thanks nightshift. I guess it does sound like a longshot! Related to this, in the movie "A Time To Kill", was that Jury Nullification, because Sam Jackson did kill that guy, but he got off. I wondered that to this day!

Niteshift

I'm just waiting for Random to give his version..............

Randøm_

Grrrr, having server probs.

Okay, Woody Harrelson got off on Jury Nullification with MJ. This is something that a defense lawyer cannot, by law, tell the jury about, even though it is the jury's right. Niteshift pretty much got it, since the jury is expected to follow the law, they are not allowed to disagree with it. However, it is their right to not give credence to a law they feel is unjust. Many alcohol prohibition cases ended with acquittal because the public was tending not to see alcohol as a crime.

Yeah, baby, this is better than the lottery. With growing concerns about MJs medicinal value and the swaying of public opinion in our favor (rementioning the Woody Harrelson acquittal), jury nullification can make the prosecution lose even when the law supports it.

The reason this is rare is simply because people aren't aware that it exists and cannot be, by law, informed of this right.

Niteshift

"Yeah, baby, this is better than the lottery."

The odds seem pretty similar. The lottery in my state is 1 in 13 million..............Woody was 1 in how many mj trials?

Randøm_

Woody was the first, not the last, and the reason many of us are learning about it. You'd have to know a little about the history of Kentucky's farming industry ... they aren't so gung-ho on the government anymore. Anyway, these sentiments are spreading. There are a number of bills introduced to legislation decriminalizing MJ as we speak. This nullification will become of greater frequeny, I'll bet ya (<---lottery joke)
Nullification in prohibition is not new at all, go look to the time before alcohol was legalized, and the public opinion at the time. This very same road has already been traversed ... why should I believe it to be so astray?

Maggie

How can it be against the law to inform a jury of their rights? Someone needs to challenge this, perhaps a former juror? I'm glad I know citizens on a jury have this right but come on I shouldn't have to learn about it on Marijuana.Com. I'm surprised some defense attorney hasn't taken this to the Supreme Court. Would it be against the law for mass media to educate the public on this?
With the public opinion of MJ prohibition changing so much it would definately help if people knew about this! (Not to mention other bull**** laws could get flushed as well).

Maggie

twistinherb

I knew what jury nullification was, however I did not know that it was illegal for a defense attorney to tell the jurors about it.

Here's my question...if you are called to the witness stand on your own behalf, could you make a remark about jury nullification while on stand? (so that they of course would hear it?)

At what point does the jury have the right to invoke this? For any law, or just "minor" offenses?

shadefoot

Woody was the first, not the last, and the reason many of us are learning about it.

I wonder how much his fame contributed to the acquittal. Famous, rich people seem to go to jail very rarely. cough, OJ, cough, cough.

The theory is that 6 jurors will somehow decide that the law is wrong and that even though you are in possession of mj, you should not be convicted.

Niteshift, does a hung jury also count as jury nullification? So that only one person would have to feel you should not be convicted and hang the jury?

Would it be against the law for mass media to educate the public on this?

We still have freedom of speech, but I think if the mass media were going to do this, it would be us using the internet, not journalists or reporters. Sorry you only found out about it here, but better here than not finding out about it at all

could you make a remark about jury nullification while on stand?

Can you do it in such a way that explains the entire concept before the prosecution objects? I suspect that they would stop you. Maybe you could work in comments about your hero, William Penn. If you made enough, maybe your point would be tacitly conveyed. Anyone know the answer to this?