Hacker News Reader

Comment by insanitybit | Hacker News Reader

Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.

View on HN

"Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law."

Not true. There is case law that allows for self-defense against unlawful use of force, or when when you reasonably believe the force was not coming from an officer (didn't announce, were not uniformed, believed to be imposters, etc).

The boyfriend in the Breonna Taylor case had charges dismissed, so you're right on this. Somehow none of the hail of 32 shots hit him.

But - to the OP's point, if you're trying to defend yourself against what appear to be police officers illegally shooting at you, the situation is just going to escalate. One police officer firing at you will shortly become many police officers firing at you. Taking cover or running is preferable to firing back at police.

* (didn't announce, were not uniformed, believed to be imposters, etc).*

Okay, but what if they just wear masks and use unmarked vehicles?

Then do they get a pass for shooting you in the back?

As I rudely learned when I was preparing to use the "I'm gonna do jury nullification" thing during a jury selection, there are a few states, including mine, where jury nullification is explicitly "not-stated" but not a uniquely acceptable reason to strike a juror, despite what our juror handbook might claim about violating an "oath" (you cannot be punished for "violating an oath" if you are selected).

I was lucky that for unrelated reasons the trial didn't happen and none of the jury selection stuff went through, but in a few states you cannot just rely on this as an easy out. This is awesome, because for true believers, you can actually do jury nullification. This was actually somewhat recently and notably used: https://www.eenews.net/articles/bundys-acquitted-in-huge-set...

My last stint on grand jury we had a case that none of us felt great about. It was a felony theft charge where the thief likely used the vehicle regularly but took it in the middle of the night to return home. He was at a logging camp where he pays for accommodations but they had no work for him. After 3 days he got frustrated and left in the middle of the night. Camp foreman called the law reporting the vehicle stolen. The officer went and checked at the now missing guy's house and the vehicle was parked in his driveway.

The whole group felt the felony charge was too much for that series of events. Somebody said "I don't want to vote on this". I suggested that is a valid option. The vote was the weakest of all the cases we covered. Several abstentions but just enough to send the case to trial.

To me that is nullification in practice. It is "the community" deciding that they don't believe the State is right in pursuing conviction. Juries are meant to be a randomized "council of elders" type body not just cogs in the machine.

Using your belief in jury nullification as a tool to get out of your duty as a citizen rubs me the wrong way. You have to participate in the functions of civilization if you want it to reflect your beliefs.

So, uh, was the guy planning on bringing the vehicle back to the logging camp? It's not obvious to me that this wasn't in fact vehicle theft.

If they had previously allowed him to take the vehicle home, then I would presume he probably was planning to bring it back. Once you explicitly allow a person to do something, it becomes harder to claim harm when they do it again.

Yes, it was technically theft. Officers found the vehicle at his house shortly after it was reported missing. Not really an opportunity to return it. If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just".

Steal a car to rush somebody to a hospital then return it after and the letter of the law will convict you as a felon. It is the jury that could decide, as representatives of the community, that you should not be a felon for saving somebody's life even if you technically stole a car.

In most states the jury instructions are to make their judgement based solely on the evidence presented to them. These instructions make a jury a cog in the prosecution machine. The purpose of a jury is a final check on the government's execution of the law by members of the community.

> If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just".

I think you're think of grand juries. They decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial, I.e. if the prosecution is just.

Even without grand juries, we'd still have juries that decide the verdicts. They decide if a conviction is just.

I was referring to both grand and petit jury in general but yes, that is correct.

If they are going to seat me on the jury after I loudly proclaim my willingness to nullify - I'm game for the trial!

The main problem is the idea that I'm held captive by some fake contract to the state. I'm lucky that where I am the law is more just/libertarian than in most other places - meaning that in general the average arrested person is more likely to be actually guilty, but especially in places that are ultra authoritarian (i.e. Virginia), I need all the power I can get to protest their unjust system or I'm not going to have my time wasted.

Obviously. It sounds like the kind of question you always say yes to unless you're trying to get out of jury duty. And yet, people aren't machines.

No one who has answered "no" made it thru the selection process, so there might be some survivor bias at play here.

I'm referring to the first selection process.

Tons of people who smoke weed and had to say "yes" to the "are you not a drug user" and lied on a form to get guns were just found by the US Supreme Court 9-0 to not be violating the law:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-backs-chal...

Hunter Biden trial would never have happened now too because of this - many people at the time wanted him to fight it out and be the poster child for this rather than the Pakistani guy in this version of the case.

So actually, you can indeed just say "yes" and than "vote your conscious" anyway, even openly - at least in the case of the few states that don't have "willing to nullify" as an acceptable reason to strike a juror during jury selection.

Note in this case guy was in an illegal state and also had cocaine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com