As per .world worldnews mod, no discussing naughty stuff like jury nullification.
While this post is blowing up, here’s the book referenced by the shooter:
Delay Deny Defend - Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It
By request: Full, uncensored video of the shooting. (Fucking obviously NSFW)
Those are cases of attempting to encourage specific juries to nullify. You’re not gonna be held in contempt for revealing you support jury nullification during selection.
held in contempt for revealing you support jury nullification during selection.
Yes, you will. If you flat out say “I support Jury Nullification” during voir dire the judge will consider it flagrant contempt for the courts and deal with you accordingly.
What will actually happen is you will be asked a vague question that skirts the issue like “do you have any beliefs which would render you unable to convict or acquit based on the evidence alone?”. If you answer in the affirmative an explanation will be demanded at which point what will your answer be? “I support jury nullification”, same deal. If you have an actual belief that gets in the way like say you abhor the death penalty they will say things like ‘case is regarding a traffic ticket, your concerns do not apply. any other reasons?’. Their goal being to show that any of your reasons either do not apply, or are insufficient in the judge’s eyes for you not to do your duty. At that point you’d still be a juror and if you do nullify for whatever reason there’s nothing they can do afaik.
You’re dreaming if you think you wouldn’t be punished for praising jury nullification in front of a judge and an entire slew of potential jurors during voir dire, when someone was handing out fliers outside the court building was convicted despite no court being in session, no actual juror receiving the pamphlet, and it held on appeals.
TBH you want evidence, the evidence is the court system still functioning because if what you said was true it would collapse in on itself.
This is pure bullshit. And that’s not just my opinion, Cornell Law School explains jury nullification on their website, and lists multiple examples of it. Juries in the United States are protected, and you cannot be held responsible for refusing to convict. You will not be punished for it, and if you are, then your rights have been violated and you have a case to sue the government.
I did not say you would get punished for exercising JN during deliberations. We’re talking about getting OUT of jury duty, which means during the voir dire process.
Yes, you will. If you flat out say “I support Jury Nullification” during voir dire the judge will consider it flagrant contempt for the courts and deal with you accordingly.
Source? Cause this is some wild shit.
Wild shit eh? What do you think JN means to a judge? It means the potential jurist is defying court direction and doing so out loud in front of everyone. It is by definition contempt. You do not get to say “I will flout your instructions and ignore the law and everyone of my peers next to me should do the same” and expect an ‘okay then, have a nice day’.
To vote your conscience as an actual juror, and convince others to go along with you during deliberations is absolutely legal. Telling the law to fuck off in official sounding language prior to being an actual juror is not, and that is essentially what the statement “I support JN” is doing.
This whole idea that there’s this 1 easy trick to getting out of jury duty is a myth born from a gross misinterpretation of what actually happens vs what it sounds like should happen. Will you get out of jury duty eventually? Probably. Will it be as easy as whipping out your “I know JN exists” membership card? No way.
Please, while we’re talking ‘wild shit’. Explain what you think will happen when you say “I support JN so can I please be excused?” and the judge spins, glares at you, and turns 3 shades of red. Before you answer that, this is a judge’s response to a nurse simply saying she would be biased due to her experiences related to the case in question. She actually had direct, relevant reasons to say she would be likely to nullify in one direction or the other and wasn’t simply saying “muh, JN, seeya”.
