luvdemshrooms said:

So the people voted their representatives into office.

The House votes in favor of this law.

The Senate votes for this law.

The Governor signs this law.

None of which would have happened had the NH Bar not given it a nod.

It ensures jurys are aware of ALL of their LEGAL options.

And one of your arguments is murderers may roam free?

And from there, to convicted murderers and pedophiles on juries?

OK.

---

falcon said:

In the context of the trials that Luvthemshrooms presented, nullification means the defendant is not found guilty, by a unanimous jury and is not liable to be tried again. I think the word is being used in two ways here.

---

zappaisgod said:

falcon said:

In the context of the trials that Luvthemshrooms presented, nullification means the defendant is not found guilty, by a unanimous jury and is not liable to be tried again. I think the word is being used in two ways here.

---

In the case he cited one juror said:

“Almost everyone said this just shouldn't have happened to these peaceful people.”

That doesn't sound like unanimity to me.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

I ignored none of your points. I chose not to engage in a debate when I'm left with the impression that you haven't read the articles or simply wish to discuss something else.

---

Enlil said:

One juror has always had the power to disregard a law he doesn't agree with, and it is a routine part of voir dire to ask jurors how they feel about the relevant laws.  All this does allow the jury to be told they have that option.

It isn't about lying on voir dire as much as it's about a jury not feeling that the defendant before them should be punished under the specific facts of that case...this is very different from being morally against the entire law.

People who are against a law in general won't get on a jury where that law is at issue.

---

Quote:

This law doesn't change voir dire procedures.  Jurors can still be challenged for cause if they have a moral aversion to a specific law that is applicable to the case.  All this law does is allow the defense to explain to the jury that they have the right to decide whether the law is applicable to the case before them.

---

Quote:

On the voir dire issue, it is the difference between a person who could never convict someone of a particular law and a person who could convict someone but doesn't feel it's appropriate in the case before that juror.  Voir dire is meant to exclude the former but not the latter.

---

Okay, then, doesn't voir dire, as you've explained its function, contradict the Seventh Amendment whereby juries have the authority according to common law to be a check on the law itself, as understood by Adams & Jefferson?  (This is a question for you, Enlil, not another  boring rhetorical posture ) See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Quote:

The Framers intended to preserve the trial by jury as it existed in England,[8] as a check on potential abuse of power by the government.[9] John Adams explains:
As the Constitution requires that the popular branch of the legislature should have an absolute check, so as to put a peremptory negative upon every act of the government, it requires that the common people, should have as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgment of a court of judicature.[10]
Uncertainty in the law is a serious problem, insofar as the published precedent of courts in a common law system is supposed to constitute "a clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise."[11] But whereas a runaway jury poses a clear and present danger to that reliance interest, a runaway judge can pose an even greater peril. As Thomas Jefferson explained: that
[w]e all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does. It is left therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.[12]
Whereas colonial judges routinely instructed jurors that they were the ultimate arbiters of both fact and law,[13] the modern judge asserts almost an plenary control over the evidence, law, and facts, instructing the jury as to what the law is,[14] and may overturn decisions in favor of the defense.[15]

---

Not Quite Social said:

I really don't see the sense in excluding people from jury duty based on a moral objection to a particular law, especially when the court directs the jurors that it does not have to apply the law.

---

Not Quite Social said:

Enlil said:

Quote:

This law doesn't change voir dire procedures.  Jurors can still be challenged for cause if they have a moral aversion to a specific law that is applicable to the case.  All this law does is allow the defense to explain to the jury that they have the right to decide whether the law is applicable to the case before them.

---

I really don't see the sense in excluding people from jury duty based on a moral objection to a particular law, especially when the court directs the jurors that it does not have to apply the law. If this is how voir dire is supposed to work, then lawyers and judges will select juries that represent the law, not necessarily the actual will of society.

As you said, Enlil, "legislatures don't like to give up power" to jurors.  The flip side of that is legislators are happy to give up power to the highest bidder and to political organizations that will help keep them in office.  So we get laws that favor special interests whether or not those laws are fair to the broader public, and with no real check placed on those laws by the public.  Nice.

---