Jury Nullification

[mrjarrell]

Also, for purposes of the hypothetical, potential jurors are asked if they will follow the law, including the instructions of the judge. For you to be on the jury, you would have to state under oath that you would do that.

I'd have no problem with that. The state Constitution is the highest law of the state legal system. It comes well before any of the others.

 

[mrjarrell]

So, we are assuming/pretending that Holden does not exist for purposes of this exercise?

Have no idea what Holden is, nor do I care. It doesn't trump the Constitution, no matter what some lapel pulling lawyer might think.

 

[T.Lex]

“the Constitution gives to juries in criminal cases the right to determine the law as well as the facts. It does not, however, give to them the right to disregard the law.”

Indiana constitution says "determine" not "disregard."

So, in the hypothetical, I would look for evidence of the person's intent to determine whether they broke the law. I don't like the law. I can neither confirm nor deny whether I may or may not have broken that exact same law. But, if on a jury, I could not ignore the law.

 

[Henry]

I could not ignore the law either....the natural law.

 

[88GT]

Indiana constitution says "determine" not "disregard."

So, in the hypothetical, I would look for evidence of the person's intent to determine whether they broke the law. I don't like the law. I can neither confirm nor deny whether I may or may not have broken that exact same law. But, if on a jury, I could not ignore the law.

But there are scores of law where intent doesn't matter.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Have no idea what Holden is, nor do I care. It doesn't trump the Constitution, no matter what some lapel pulling lawyer might think.

Ok, I figured reality was optional, this is INGO afterall.

Just curious.

 

[HoughMade]

Just poking my head in and taking a look around...

Nope....bad idea.

 

[DarkLight]

Ok, I figured reality was optional, this is INGO afterall.

Just curious.

Kirk, are you referring to the Brice Holden v Indiana appellee case?

My understand was that the context of that case was in regards to 'implied threats' and how juries are not bound to rigid adherence to the literal meaning of a communication. How can that be used in regards to 'no guns in school' law?

 

[hornadylnl]

Don't drop the soap in prison

The rights outlined in our constitution are God given... Unless you were born outside of ours borders, in which case they're given by man.

 

[T.Lex]

But there are scores of law where intent doesn't matter.

This is a sub-topic where definitions are important. There are very few "strict liability" crimes, where intent truly doesn't matter. (Frankly, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I remember that they exist. Need. More. Coffee.)

I'm really thinking about in more practical terms. Did the arrest head off a violent episode or was it an innocent mistake? That kind of evidence becomes important. In this specific hypothetical, I would probably vote not guilty. But, I also don't count that as jury nullification.

If that does count, then Indiana juries do that same sort of thing at least 1x per week somewhere in the state.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Jury nullification should be an important part of the judicial system, but it is rarely employed. I think that's quite the shame.

Idk, in some regards I can see the benefits, but in others it can be abused to avoid justice. There perhaps should be some sort of check in place.

 

[T.Lex]

Idk, in some regards I can see the benefits, but in others it can be abused to avoid justice. There perhaps should be some sort of check in place.

Like... voir dire (asking potential jurors questions under oath) and jury instructions from the judge?

(I'd also say good lawyers on both sides helps, but... well... this being INGO and all....)

 

[Henry]

Another situation.


You are a citizen of Indiana in the year 1852.


You have been selected to serve on a jury. You learn that a farmer in your community was found harboring slaves who escaped from Mississippi.


The farmer is a well known radical abolitionist. He has faced similar charges before. Within the last year he was forced to pay a $1,000 fine and was incarcerated for six months for providing food and shelter to a run away slave.


Recently a neighbor spotted the farmer hiding a family of slaves in his barn and taking food into the barn over a period of several days. Being a good, law abiding citizen, the neighbor knew to say something when he saw something. He alerted authorities. The farmer was arrested and charged with violating fugitive slave laws.


The evidence is clear and indisputable.


The judge explains the law to the jury and the jury is dismissed to a back room for deliberation.


As a juror, do you judge the man guilty and convict him of a crime?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like... voir dire (asking potential jurors questions under oath) and jury instructions from the judge?

(I'd also say good lawyers on both sides helps, but... well... this being INGO and all....)

Lol true. They'd find a way to get on that jury.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey, INGO goes Connor Prairie! Follow the North Star!

My friend, this is very close to jumping the shark. I'm nearly positive slavery was illegal in Indiana under the state constitution. We had other issues (legal prevention of black immigration), but I don't think it would have played out like that.

Plus, I'm not sure I would've been eligible to be on the jury.

 

[Henry]

Hey, INGO goes Connor Prairie! Follow the North Star!

My friend, this is very close to jumping the shark. I'm nearly positive slavery was illegal in Indiana under the state constitution. We had other issues (legal prevention of black immigration), but I don't think it would have played out like that.

Plus, I'm not sure I would've been eligible to be on the jury.

Slavery was illegal in Indiana, but the fugitive slave laws were in effect.

To avoid confusion, substitute Kentucky for Indiana.