430th Anniversary of a Hugely Significant Event....

D

Dan Sarandrea (Phila)

Waitin' On Parts...
....is Today (9/5/11).

Scroll down for a Hint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint: William Penn, 1670.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
William Penn, Quaker, arrested for preaching a religion other than that of the Church of England.

The case eventually led to recognition of the Jury's power to nullify laws.

More info: http://fija.org/jury-rights-day/
 
I tried this....

but didn't get past jury selection on a drug possesion case. Asked if I would find for a jail sentence for the offence I told the prosecutor I would not even find the defendent guilty, regardless of evidence.
Needless to say they rejected my service on the jury.
Anyway, jury selection and challenge procedures pretty well deny the chance of jury nullification-unless you can get 12 like minded and devious strangers to somehow conspire to get seated on the panel.:hmm:

Interesting piece of history!:):)
 
Can just one do it?

Hung jury? :hmm:

Anyway, I can never keep my trap shut and the two times I actually got as far as getting asked questions, I told 'em the truth.
 
In theory one informed jury member could inform the rest and swing the case. However, you not only have to convince the jurors of their rights but also convince them that the law you are trying to nullify is unjust. The two areas of law that are most likely going to need nullification are drug possession and weapons possession. The odds that there will be 12 people in the same room, much less 12 selected jurors, that agree with you are slim to none. A hung jury just delays the inevitable. That doesn't mean it's not a worthy cause.
 
In America today, the place where the individual citizen exercises the most power is in the Jury Room.

Acording to a little web searching, only Oregon and Louisiana do not require unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases.
 
Agreed...

It would take all of the contrivance of Hollywood and the acting ability of Henry Fonda to truly turn the heads of 12 Angry Men or Women.
 
I'm surprised I still get a jury summons

You know, most lawyers hate having someone with a scientific background on a jury. Apparently, they like someone they can sway with emotion. The moment I mention I'm an engineer, that's it, I usually get the boot. The one time I wasn't, I did render my opinion (somewhat under my breath), but they heard it. You're outta here! Incidentally, if you have the option, try and get your jury date changed to a Friday. Lawyers don't like coming in on Fridays. If you get stuck on a Monday, you're almost certainly doomed to a long day.

I think I've begun leaning towards professional, informed juries.
 
I've found that people don't like sharing their opinions openly. Last time I was in jury selection one of the charges against the defendant was weapons possession. They asked everyone in the room their opinion on gun control and me and one other guy were the only ones that would really give a solid answer. But then afterwards 5 or 6 people came up to me to tell me how they agreed with me and the other guy (who's opinions were pretty much opposite mine) was wrong. I imagine the same thing happened to the other guy too.
 
Probably would be different...

in a different kind of case-say armed robbery. But something with stark political polarizartions is bound to go underground in those situations. I'm surprised they can get a truly unbiased jury in these cases. If you say you oppose the war on drugs you are out, if you say you support the war on drugs you might be out to. Are there people who don't actually care one way or the other? Maybe, be they are probably too stoned to answer the question:laugh::laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top