chapotraphouse

13594 readers

572 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

203

The first rule of jury nullification is: don't talk about jury nullification (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you want to nullify a law as a member of a jury, don’t talk about jury nullification:

during jury selection
during the trial
in private with any other jury member
during verdict deliberation

There is no Michael Scott moment where you “declare nullification”.

Even if the defendant is on camera and appears to commit the crime; if the defendant admitted to committing the crime; if the defendant shook your hand and said, “send me to prison, I’m guilty” — you simply decide that you did not see sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty.

The moment you talk about jury nullification, you will be removed from the jury and/or cause a mistrial.

Just a friendly tip to those who want to serve their civic duty!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

so ... when do you actually use jury nullification if you can't ever actually say those words?

Or do you just acquit them by saying insufficient evidence, as you mentioned?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

Option 2. Option 1 is like the cartoon character who monologues instead of taking action and gets interrupted as the butt of the joke.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you say "while we agree they broke the law, we do not agree with the law itself"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

You do not say this. You just say that you do not believe there is enough evidence and stand firm.