Exceedingly rare and shouldn’t be relied upon in any case.
Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
Correct, they absolutely should not—in a working democracy.
The trouble is democracy isn't working when it comes to copyright, it never has. The 1886 Berne Convention was snuck in and locked in place before anyone realized what had happened. Big vested interests like Sony have had governments by the knackers ever since at everyone else's expense.
The question is how does the citizenry now regain control over its governance. Put another way, rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
See for example people who think it's fine to shoplift from stores because "they're big companies" or whatever.
> rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
The MPAA members, including Disney, Sony, AND netflix, have a combined value of $500b. Set aside netflix and that's $300b - 1/0th the size of a company like Google.
Now you might be right that large companies that rely on copyright for control are a danger, but if Sony is a big danger, what does that make Google or Apple.
Google, MS, Meta, Amazon and many others are exercising monopolistic power to the disadvantage of others. Put it this way, the small percentage of the population who are very wealthy shareholders and owners of these companies—powerful vested interests—have inflicted significant damage on our society by their control over government.
When the rich binge on getting richer and all others get poorer as a consequence and government does nothing about it then history tells us where that usually ends. One doesn't have to be Einstein to see our society is in a damn mess and it's getting worse.
Everyone is all for jury nullification until you get a few closet Klansmen on a jury 'nullifying' a dead-to-rights-guilty lynching trial.
Also, if I'm putting my life in the hands of 12 randos, I must be really, really, really 'down bad' (as the kids these days say).
There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?
Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion isn't supposed to let them punish people who are innocent. State governors have the power to grant pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law".
"The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things.
Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".
Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide.
Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal.
Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that.
The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising.
If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.
What happened on the night of March 17th?
Matters of law:
What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
To be clear, only in civil cases. In criminal cases, there is no way to overturn JN.