Discussing jury nullification is against the ToS of lemmy.world and will get you banned, according to worldnews mod
Discussing jury nullification is against the ToS of lemmy.world and will get you banned, according to worldnews mod
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)
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
We’re talking about getting OUT of jury duty
No we are not.
No we are not.
You can't even remember what this thread is about? Really. Tragically, all you had to do was scroll to the top and re-read the top of the branch to refresh your memory. Wow. Guess we know you're not a lawyer.
This is the start of this:
"It’s a TOS violation to discuss one of the very real and legitimate responsibilities you have as a juror?
Like, nullification is a thing because it’s very much the absolute very very last defense against bullshit laws being used against people by a corrupt judicial system.
It’s a moral imperative and something anyone sitting on a jury should understand and be willing to use.
What an absurd take, especially since it sounds like it’s all the .world admins having it."
This is about jury nulification, and one comment on how it will get you kicked off a jury does not make the whole thing about dodging jury duty.
Demonstrating your mastery of the English language again. Didn't say this was about 'the whole thing'. "This. Thread."
See top of thread.
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.
Cornell Law School says they're wrong.
Basic logic as well. The idea that a judge will "deal with you accordingly" for having an opinion is the wild part.
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".
Oh found your case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/2018306.html
You might want to check it out, but here is a fun snippet:
"OPINION
During voir dire in this criminal case, the trial judge threw a book against the wall, cursed, and berated, yelled at, and threatened a prospective juror for expressing her belief that she could not be impartial. We conclude that such behavior and statements constitute judicial misconduct and may have discouraged other prospective jurors from answering candidly about their own biases. Because we cannot be convinced that an impartial jury was selected under these circumstances where the judge did nothing to alleviate the intimidating atmosphere that he created, we reverse and remand for a new trial."
and clearly that was what was going through that nurses mind while it happened.
You know what the woman was thinking? Odd ability.
Oh no comment on how the judge was found in the wrong?
You know this is the case you showed an entertainment video on as an example, right?
You think she was in realtime relieved that the appeals court would rule against the judge ages after the fact? No wonder you people think getting out of JD is so easy. You have no clue what it is really like in a courtroom.
The point was to give an example of what to expect while trying the "I get outta JD because of JN" bullshit, but I guess that went over your head. Not surprised at this point.
Yes results that disprove your point are clearly irrelevant.
Didn't disprove squat. But that's already been said. Bye. I look forward to hearing about your valiant attempts to get out of JD with your absolutely amazing wits and memory. Good luck.
Not in the USA, and hello.
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.
You do know there is a whole thing about a US citizen having a right to tell the law to fuck off right?
Also where did you get the "so can I please be excused" part from? No one was talking nullification in this case in order to dodge jury duty, but that they don't think the assassin should be punished.
if you want out of jury duty, mention jury nullification and you are out of there.
That's what this thread is about genius
Its about jury nullification with one comment on how you will get kicked off a jury for mentioning it. But sure, it would take a genius to see the nuance of that in a post about the popular murder of a health insurance CEO.