<p>OP you gave this explanation of jury nullification, saying you will consider the facts and evidence and judge accordingly, but you may not convict if the law is unjust or something. </p>
<p>"I strongly believe in jury nullification and believe I am ethically and morally
bound to uphold such, given the tyrannical and oppressive nature of our
government, especially our judicial branch. I tell the court this to its own
convenience, I will consider all facts and evidence and judge accordingly.
Though I do uphold my right to judge the laws at hand. "</p>
<p>However, you then state unequivocally that you could “never give a guilty verdict, never”. </p>
<p>That isn’t jury nullification. People that believe in jury nullification don’t automatically refuse to give a guilty verdict. But that’s what you’re saying.</p>
<p>Do you know what you are talking about? Shouldn’t you have your terms straight if you are such a conscientious objector to jury service? </p>
<p>Maybe the judge can put you on a civil case. So I wouldn’t count on this speech getting you out of jury duty, if that’s your goal.</p>
<p>The term “jury nullification” generally refers to situation where the jury refuses to impose what they consider an unjust or inappropriate law – not where they refuse to follow the evidence on whim or for some inherent bias. An example would be a jury that acquits a person who possesses marijuana for medical use – the law prohibits possession, the evidence is clear, the defendant testifies that she has cancer and marijuana is the only thing that helps with her pain and nausea – the judge instructs the jury that the defendant’s medical condition is irrelevant and not a defense to the charge – and the jury nonetheless acquits. </p>
<p>I do think that if you feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of a juror in an impartial manner, you should tell the judge – simply say that you have strong beliefs about the criminal justice system that make it impossible for you to be fair. Let the lawyers or the judge ask follow up questions and answer them directly and truthfully, but don’t give speeches.</p>
<p>Calmom, great explanation! That’s what I was trying to say…I don’t think someone who says they would “never give a guilty verdict, never”, like the OP said, is an example of jury nullification.</p>
<p>To previous poster re college students serving: I did not mean to imply that college kids do not serve on juries–make it mandatory before earning that degree that they serve at least once–as part of the learning process. That should provide a wealth of potential jurors. For that matter, make it a requirement for law school students! </p>
<p>Even if one announces nullification as in the orginal poster’s comments, it appears that one would still need to show up for jury duty each day. Your day is spent waiting each time for dismissal–unless the judge just outright dismisses you from day 1. </p>
<p>Yes, it is a right and duty as a citizen to serve on a jury, but again I would not want anyone to sit on a jury that was essentially forced into doing so. And, I think once in your lifetime is enough–unless that is something you just don’t mind participating in.</p>
<p>I don’t see how it is a right. Can you just go in and demand that you be on a jury?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I would think that law school students would be the last people that you’d want on juries.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that engineers typically aren’t welcome on juries. Perhaps something about logic, reasoning and proof result in non-deterministic results.</p>
<p>BCEagle–I could see where engineers might not be welcome–(no offense, engineers), they need everything to be either right or wrong, no middle of the road. One should be able to plug in one explanation and be able to arrive at another with no maybe-middle answers. This based on the engineers that I know–maybe not all engineers. I guess they would need the proof beyond a shadow of a doubt and perhaps in many cases doubt is evident, just not pronounced, and a good salesman lawyer has been able to make the case.</p>
<p>Law students might not make good jurors, but at least they would garner some appreciation and perhaps learn the real court system. After all, for many, the court system is the reason for their jobs. </p>
<p>We have often discussed the possibility of professional, paid jurors as spouse is an attorney. People that have been trained to serve on juries for a living. I don’t know what the answer might be w/regards to jury duty, as there are always going to be people that do not want to serve and those like you have mentioned that would be willing to go in and sign up to serve all the time.</p>
<p>Engineers are quite often willing to argue to the ends of the world with tools that the typical person doesn’t have. That wouldn’t make for a pleasant time in a small room.</p>
<p>I was on a jury that nullified a law regarding possession of hand grenades. The law requires that hand grenades have a serial number and be registered but testimony was that they’re sold by the crate with the crate itself having the only number. (This may have changed, of course.) We felt it was unfair to convict a person - who was a bad guy - of a law he couldn’t satisfy. It became clear the defense wanted me on the jury - who would put a lawyer, let alone someone who’d worked in prosecution and defense on a jury? - because they were hoping for nullification. After the trial, the judge told us he had the same reservations about the law and indicated he might have dismissed a guilty verdict if we’d gone that way.</p>
<p>As to a person who doesn’t believe in the justice system, my opinion is this: seek professional help. You need to identify the sources of your anger, mistrust and paranoia. </p>
<p>BTW, I’ve sat at both the prosecution and the defense table.</p>
<p>No, “paranoia” is never a healthy attribute. It is typically a sign of mental instability.</p>
<p>"I’ve heard that engineers typically aren’t welcome on juries. Perhaps something about logic, reasoning and proof result in non-deterministic results. "</p>
<p>Molecular biologists almost never get selected as jurors for the cases involving lots of DNA evidence.</p>
<p>No, that’s not “paranoia” (as in its clinical definition). I think people misuse this psychiatry term. Questioning things is a healthy attribute.</p>
<p>I have served on a jury. My understanding is that during the voir dire, you are ONLY allowed to answer questions that are POSED to you. You cannot volunteer additional information about any other beliefs or whatever. Prior to the voir dire, juror prospects in this state are asked to fill out a form indicating any reasons why they should NOT be chosen for a jury (believe me…there really aren’t any). From what we were told, that is the ONLY TIME you can indicate any reasons for not serving on a jury. If a question comes up during your voir dire that would REQUIRE an answer about your beliefs, you can give them. Otherwise, nope.</p>
<p>Yes, and biomedical scientists often get unselected for drunk driving trials too - where you might know something about the alcohol testing methods and their flaws.</p>