Hacker News Reader

Comment by codingdave | Hacker News Reader

It should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their decision.

View on HN

I always wondered how the hell jury system works and how the hell they can put matters like this, or any matter for that matter, in the hands of a jury? Jury system seems so arbitrary to me. There is no explanation - no basis - just “we felt like this”, or rather “whatever, we want to do just do this”.

It isn't quite that chaotic. The attorneys will negotiate and work with the judge to figure out how to instruct the jury. And before the jury goes to deliberate on the decision, they are given fairly detailed instructions on what the law is, what evidence to consider, and sometimes what to specifically not consider.

As the other posters said, most jurisdictions follow specific recommendations on avoiding telling the jury to do whatever they want. And different jurisdictions have different rules on whether or not the jury can truly redefine the law or facts. Some places have that ingrained in their state constitution, but most do not. And civil vs. criminals trials also have different rules. And where I live, there are even different rules for specific types of civil trials.

It really is all fairly complex, hence every trial will give a specific set of instructions to that jury. And that is also why an attorney in one jurisdiction might not be correct on how the details work in another one. (Although the gist of it all will be the same.)

At the same time, this is also why we don't know for sure what the jury said or thought. We can get all their instructions - those are public record. But the actual deliberation is not.

As always, IANAL. Other commenters already seem to be annoyed at my layman's take on it all, but this is what I know from being a law school dropout and having served on juries.

Have you ever heard of a judge telling a jury that they are free to think for themselves and give the answer they want? If I recall, there is a term for that, called jury nullification and judges reportedly become upset if attorneys tell their juries about it.

If you hear of a judge that encourages juries to think for themselves and answer as they think, rather than prescribing how to think to them, let me know.

I'm a lawyer. I've explained this so many times it's starting to bore me, but I have to keep doing it.

Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct.

It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint."

It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so.

People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com