I think it’s time to cut off comments. This is getting annoying.

Of course it applies. Robbery is a crime. Crimes are prosecuted by the government in criminal court. In a criminal case, the victim of the crime is merely a witness. The case itself is the government’s.

I won’t necessarily believe you. I know how hard it is under violent or threat-of-violence to remember things exactly. I would believe that you got robbed, but not that you remember the person exactly.

It’s a matter of perspective. If you assume that your FIRST duty as a juror is to judge whether you like the law or not, I think that’s irresponsible, and also disrespectful to your fellow citizens who may disagree with you. If there’s something about the case that nags at your conscience (e.g., the cancer patient caught smoking a joint after chemotherapy) then by all means nullify the law. But IMO you’re primarily there to see to it that the defendant is getting a fair trial. If the trial seems fair and the evidence against the defendant seems solid, then I think choosing a not guilty verdict is not something one should do for frivolous reasons, even though you’re within your rights to decide any way you want. If on the other hand this particular case has mitigating circumstances that make you think a not guilty verdict is just wrong, even though the law was broken, I respect that. But such cases are rare, I suspect.

In our case I had no idea what kind of sentence the defendant might have received had he been found guilty. The judge wouldn’t tell us, and he said that’s something we shouldn’t even be thinking about. We should look only at the facts of the case. If I had known that the guy would have received 10 years in a penitentiary for simple marijuana possession, that would have been a problem. But I honestly didn’t know, and the prosecution’s case was stupid, so it wasn’t an issue.

No, don’t worry about this possibility. A juror in a criminal case has an absolute power to vote “not guilty”, with no requirement to explain the reasons for the vote to anyone whatsoever, the judge included.

Otherwise, I tend to agree with your point of view regarding jury nullification.

That’s why you have to be VERY CAREFUL if think your first responsibility is to pass judgment on whether you agree with the law that allegedly was violated and not the evidence in the case. ”

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. But you’re imputing to me things I did not say — or mean.

I pointed out that my first duty as a juror is to see justice served. For the most part, this does indeed involve following the judge’s direction with regard to the law. Fine; I’ve not disagreed with anything.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, there will be exceptions (though probably not in any case I ever see as a juror). In my case, I noticed that before the trial ever started, the judge asked whether I would follow his direction on matters of law and weighing the evidence. At the time I responded I would.

Thinking about it later, I should not have. I looked around, and found out why I should not have, and the effect that this has on jurors.

(1) In agreeing to vote with the law as the judge instructs me, I may be misinformed or underinformed. In re: jury nullification, the judge almost certainly WILL NOT tell me I have any right to do this. Few people seem to be aware of their “rights” in this regard.

(2) By answering the question about following his direction, I committed myself to an (admittedly hypothetical) possible perversion of justice. If I did so and then voted my conscience against his directions, it’s possible that I could have been found in contempt of court for refusing to follow his direction. By answering truthfully (“probably”), the judge will also probably dismiss me on his own volition for cause (others I have known who did answer the question in the negative have had this happen). Also by answering in the affirmative, I’ve biased myself towards following the judge’s direction; this may or may not be a good thing.

(3) Juries can nullify laws. I do not always think this is a good thing; as I pointed out, it allowed open air lynchings in broad daylight. But the converse allows truly evil laws to do enormous harm: e.g., the Waco jurors who cried when they found out what their conviction implied, and would have voted acquit if they had known.

Thus, I think it is incumbent on jurors not to take their jobs lightly. Nor do I think they should take on their jobs in ignorance — no matter that the judge is educated: doing so, IMO, is an abdication of one of a citizen’s most important duties. The FIJA agrees. (Note that I’m NOT implying that you took your duties lightly.)

In this context, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” means something entirely different, but’s it’s still worth a thought.

When I regularly see convictions with draconian sentences for absurd “crimes” (e.g., telling a boyfriend to call someone back (the someone wanted to buy drugs, which she may or may not have known)) I think it especially behooves us to remember the law can be an ass.

The goal here, IMO, is a fair and just society. Given the current incarceration rates in this country, it’s clear we’re not doing a very good job.

I think that you’re not being honest with us in claiming you were a fair and impartial juror. In fact, I question your judgment about the entire case. So, I’m going to ask some questions. Just because these questions imply that I can’t trust your judgment and think you’re incompetent enough that you haven’t thought of them, since they’re only questions, they can’t be insulting.

Did you get dressed on days you appeared for jury duty? Showing up naked might have influenced the jury in a negative manner. And did you recognize that they were speaking English, not Norwegian, at the trial?

Also, did you only use clearly marked restrooms for elimination, or did you use the broom closet? Using the broom closet as a bathroom is highly unprofessional.

And you know, despite your having claimed to respect the law, I don’t think you do, because you didn’t say things the way I would say them. But I didn’t say that you don’t respect the law, so don’t pretend I did! I simply said that I don’t think you do, and that’s something else entirely!

Now, I know you might think there are some really insulting implications in the questions I’m asking, but since I didn’t directly insult you, don’t you dare take offense or you’ll hurt my feelings and then I *will* have to call you names and stalk off angrily.

However, this does not mean what you were originally claiming when you stated: “If the case boils down to the prosecution’s word against the defendant’s word, then the law requires a ‘not guilty’ verdict.”

Cases, and convictions, happen all the time in the criminal justice system where it is simply a single police officer’s word against the defendant’s. A simple example where such scenarios are commonplace is in trials for speeding, where the only witnesses are often a single police officer who testifies that the defendant was speeding, and the defendant who testifies that he wasn’t. The fact that the prosecution has the burden of proof, and that proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, in no way precludes a jury from returning a verdict of guilty.