D.C. Prosecutors Worried a Truthful Ad About Jury Nullification in Metro Could Hurt Them

The truth can indeed set you free, especially when it comes to the jury's right and responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts and make any decision it wants.

And when an ad promoting the cause of the Fully Informed Jury Association appeared in the D.C. metro system, it is making local prosecutors nervous, says the Washington Post:

Prospective jurors who take the subway to D.C. Superior Court and exit near the National Building Museum see these words: “Good jurors nullify bad laws” and “You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”

Foter.com / Public Domain Mark 1.0Foter.com / Public Domain Mark 1.0

Since the billboard went up this month, District prosecutors have been worried that the message could sway their cases. In the past week alone, they have asked judges in three ­cases to ensure that jurors had neither seen nor been influenced by the billboard....

James Babb, a Philadelphia-based graphics artist who organized a fundraising campaign to put up the billboard, said he raised $3,000 in about a week through Facebook and other ­social-media sites. He said he is concerned about laws that he thinks are too restrictive.

“People are going to jail for weed,” Babb said. “Things are getting so weird. There needs to be this final safeguard to protect us from a tyrannical government.”

Babb’s group has added a similar message on two pillars in Archives station, another Metro stop near the courthouse. Both displays are scheduled to be up for about a month. Babb said he also plans to place signs in other cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles....

The billboard also comes as Adam Kokesh, a Fairfax County-based gun rights activist, is preparing to go to trial after posting an Independence Day video on YouTube of himself apparently loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza. He had been scheduled to go to trial Thursday, but the case was pushed back to at least Nov. 18.

Kokesh’s supporters have advocated for jury nullification in his case.

[Kathleen] Tynan [of the Fully Informed Jury Association, named on the ad] said the Metro billboard was not directly aimed at the Kokesh, who pleaded not guilty to carrying a pistol without a license, but she said that his case was the kind her organization targeted. “It’s a victimless trial,” Tynan said.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office said there has been no organized effort by prosecutors to address the billboard, but instead prosecutors have raised the issue on a case-by-case basis...

Reason on jury nullification.

As the old saying goes, American liberty stands on four boxes: the ballot box, the cartridge box, the fuzzbox, and the jury box.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • radar||

    What the hell is a fuzzbox?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    American liberty stands on a 1980s English alternative rock band?

  • ||

    Goddammit!

  • ||

    Their version of Spirit in the Sky was much cooler than Norma Whatisface.

  • robc||

    You are wrong.

    I thought it was neat at first but then they started "singing".

  • blcartwright||

  • Jordan||

    I was wondering that too. Sounds hot though...

  • ||

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    That's terrible.

  • ||

    Incorrect.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's punk. It's supposed to be terrible.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I can accept that. Never did get into punk.

  • sarcasmic||

    My wife and some of the local college stations turned me on to it. Some of it sucks so bad it's good.

  • Tonio||

    I believe that it's one of those pedal thingies that musicians use to distort the audio coming out of their guitars.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • ||

    Third place is nerd place!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I hate you.

  • ||

    And you posted shit from their second album! Shame!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's the Barbarella-inspired music video. I still remember that 25 years later.

  • robc||

    Shameful bronze.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Kaptious and I beat you.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I hate you more.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Kids these days and their Google. I had never heard of them until I Googled "What's a Fuzzbox?"

  • Tonio||

    Please leave your kinky fantasies out of this ASM.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That was a more useful term before the invention of the Lady Norelco.

  • prolefeed||

    Not every woman shaves their vag.

  • robc||

  • Live Free or Diet||

    If you're worried about crabs you really should date a better class of girl.
    And shaving down there can invite bacterial infection problems.

  • Hugh Akston||

    And not every homeowner mows their lawn. But the ones who do have more company.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    And not every homeowner mows their lawn. But the ones who do have more company.

    And that's why I don't mow the lawn but about every three weeks. Anybody who cares about that kind of horseshit isn't welcome here anyway.

    Also back when I lived in a neighborhood, it was fun to inform the HOA board members that the nastygrams they sent were wrong. Because I had 0.52 acres and they each had 0.49 acres or less, I could grow my grass and weeds to anything short of 18" but their's had to stay under 12".

  • Anomalous||

    Girl I wanna shave you down, get rid of all that muff you don't need.

  • rts||

    A type of amplifier.

  • Tonio||

    Nope. It's a distortion-producing accessory. Modifies signal, but does not amplify.

  • rts||

    The best kind of correct!

  • sarcasmic||

    A well trimmed vagina.

  • Bobarian||

    I thought it was more the poorly trimmed variety.

    http://www.thehirsutismhub.com.....rewax1.jpg

  • Rhywun||

    No way am I clicking that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Me neither.

  • ||

    I'm assuming that's one of Warty's many offspring.

  • Bobarian||

    Only if it also has teeth.

  • ||

    News flash: vaginas don't have hair.

  • sarcasmic||

    vagina female pubic area

  • ||

    Or labia.

  • SugarFree||

    Mama's got a fuzzbox
    She keeps under her dress
    And when Daddy comes home
    He never gets no rest

  • Killazontherun||

    'There Should Be A Law Against Songs About Parents Fucking' would be a great title for a song.

  • Pelosi's Accommodator||

    Jimi come back
    Come back and feedback on my knapsack
    You can feedback the fuzztone from your wah wah
    While you bend down and set your stuff on fire

  • kinnath||

  • Enough About Palin||

    I think its a misspelling of fuckbook.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Prospective jurors who take the subway to D.C. Superior Court and exit near the National Building Museum see these words: “Good jurors nullify bad laws” and “You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”

    A jury is the only public institution where your vote as an individual matters. It should scare prosecutors and judges shitless if people figure out they don't have to listen to instructions and can think on their own.

  • Jordan||

    Who the hell do The People think they are, thwarting the will of The People?!

  • Tonio||

    Good one, Jordan.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Next thing you know they're going to start thinking that the State isn't always interested in fair and just outcomes!

  • sarcasmic||

    The People is everyone but any individual. So when an individual juror doesn't do as they re instructed, then yes they are thwarting the will of The People.

    The People is the modern Divine Right of the King.

  • Tonio||

    Sounds like the prosecutors are scared shitless already.

    Pro Tip: The really smart jurors are going to have not seen that ad, no sir, no way, never saw nuffin.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I've never received jury summons, but I'm the kind of person that would actually want to serve on one considering what I've learned from Reason and Balko about prosecutor misconduct.

  • ||

    Apparently mentioning that you disapprove of the death penalty in CA because it's more costly than life imprisonment without parole gets you booted from jury selection right quick.

  • ||

    You got book learnin'? From libertarians? DISMISSED!

  • ||

    I got a jury summons in Manhattan. At the time, I worked as a contractor from my apartment, so each day they had me there would cost me a lot of money, so I did everything I could to get off the jury (it was a "I slipped on the sidewalk and am suing the city" case, so no bad laws to vote against anyway). The judge knew what I was doing and wasn't happy, but the plaintiff's attorney wanted me off the jury, so I was off. Basically I just said that I had also sustained a terrible leg injury and didn't sue anyone, because shit happens. He didn't like that.

  • prolefeed||

    The way to get off a jury is to throw the summons in the trash, because you never saw it, the government post office musta screwed up the delivery.

    Works like a charm.

    That, and not giving the government a valid address to send you notices to in the first place.

  • ||

    Yes, I learned that after that first time. From then on, in the trash you go. Prove I received it.

  • ||

    In California, they use the driver's license database and the voter registry for jury summons. If you're on one or the other, they'll summon you eventually. If you move and change your address on only one of them, you're in their system twice. If you don't respond to the mailed summons, they'll give you a friendly call, so you can no longer deny you didn't get the summons.

    I've lived here for 10 years and I've been called 4 times. My wife is going in for jury duty tomorrow. I'm not sure if the absurd number of summons is because so many people are suing/being presecuted, or because Californians are particularly adept at getting out of jury duty and shortening the rotation.

  • prolefeed||

    I'm in Utah, and my car is registered in Hawaii, so good luck in getting me on a jury.

    How did they get your phone number? Don't recall any government agency ever demanding that from me.

  • ||

    I have no idea how they got it, but they called me the last time I tossed their summons. Hmm, maybe I should change my number...

  • Bobarian||

    They get the data from the RFID they secretly insert in your neck while you are comatose at the DMV.

  • Juice||

    I live in a town that straddles two counties in MD. I live in the little lip that goes for a couple of blocks into the minor county. But the DMV bitch argued with me about which county I live in and so she put me down for the other county. I got a jury duty notice so I called them and told them I don't live in that county. They took me off the list and told me to straighten it out with the other county. I don't think I'll ever get a jury notice while I'm living here.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    I've lived in California most of my life, and the last jury summons I got was 25 years ago. I vote and I drive. I am really curious as to why no jury summons since then, it would be good to get on and reject a bogus case now and then, but I am not so curious and so interested in nullifying victimless crimes that I will waste time asking them.

  • blcartwright||

    a couple years ago a neighboring county in Pa had a complex murder case (lesbian love triangle) and after striking people from the jury pool didn't have enough folks left to fill out the spots, so the judge sent the sheriff's deputies down to WalMart to round up some folks for the jury.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    I had a jury summons in Manhattan and had to go out to Brooklyn Federal courthouse. It was a drug case. Each of us got asked if we had ever used drugs, or had any family or friends who used drugs. I said yes yes and yes. Of course I did. Was there anyone in the room who didn't? But nobody else spoke up. I didn't get it.

  • Sevo||

    "I've never received jury summons, but I'm the kind of person that would actually want to serve on one considering what I've learned from Reason and Balko about prosecutor misconduct."

    If you answer the preliminary questions honestly, there is no way you will end up on a jury.
    Neither the prosecution nor the defense wants anyone who will question the 'stories' both of them are going to tell.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I told them that I had a family member that was recently the victim of a violent crime, which was true. Got a violent crime.

    I also told them that I didn't trust the police because cops are given perverse incentives and not punished for lying.

    Maybe they thought those two things cancelled out.

  • Killazontherun||

    I've been called to jury duty seven times. Fucking hate it with a passion. I think it time my number gets retired to give the rest of you a chance to serve.

  • DRM||

    Yeah, I went in for jury service ready to hang the jury if I thought the law was improper or that the prosecutor was being a bastard or the police were lying or . . . well.

    I got a case where the core evidence was police dash cam video showing a five-time felon and multiple-time drunk driver driving while utterly smashed.

  • Paul.||

    “People are going to jail for weed,” Babb said. “Things are getting so weird. There needs to be this final safeguard to protect us from a tyrannical government.”

    That's not all they're going to jail for.

    Some police officers enforcing the Giuliani administration's continuing crackdown on quality-of-life crimes are focusing their efforts on a new public menace, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.

    This spring, a dozen people have been arrested and jailed for a night for smoking cigarettes on Manhattan subway platforms. The formal charge is disorderly conduct.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06.....bject.html

    Quality of life crimes. I like that. It's very progressive.

  • ||

    The NYPD needs a new excuse to stop and frisk people. Smoking a cig on the subway platform at 2AM? Bam! Excuse made!

  • thom||

    Nothing improves your quality of life like a night in jail.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    "As the old saying goes, American liberty stands on four boxes: the ballot box, the cartridge box, the fuzzbox, and the jury box."

    I've voted, I know how to shoot, I've got my MXR Slash fuzz in the drawer. I've never done jury duty. For me, Liberty stands on a tripod. More stable that way.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    when an ad promoting the cause of the Fully Informed Jury Association appeared in the D.C. metro system, it is making local prosecutors nervous

    "We have to be able to trust people to look deep into their hearts and vote GUILTY."

  • Troy muy grande boner||

    The first time I heard jury instructions read to a jury, I was shocked at how much the judge lies to the jury.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Why is Martin van Buren the only juror paying attention in that painting?

  • Paul.||

    Because he's going to nullify, the others have already decided.

  • SugarFree||

    12,000 arrests for simple possession of marijuana in Brooklyn alone for 2012.

    Land of the free, indeed.

  • Paul.||

    Quality-of-life crimes.

  • ||

    I guarantee you that 90% or more of those arrests were of non-whites. This policy was in place when I lived there too, and I was never approached by police officers for anything like this, ever. That's why I could carry a gun illegally and not even worry. White and live in Manhattan? Walk around with weed or a gun or whatever and you will be just fine. At least back then. After 9/11, not so much.

  • SugarFree||

    No gun, but I've openly smoked on the street as well.

    Being white in NYC is like having a superpower.

  • ||

    It was even more so in 1999, especially since I lived two blocks from Gracie Mansion. I think the only non-social interactions I had with cops at all was getting nailed for turning right off Madison Ave during rush hour, and once when a detective knocked on my door because a cop who lived on my street got mugged in her own apartment and he was canvassing. And I might have been given a "fix your broken taillight in 24 hours or pay a fine" ticker.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    (refers to statute of limitations)

    (looks up Bloomberg's cell number)

  • ||

    I did it right past his place on 86th street, even! Before he was mayor, and after! Ha ha ha ha!

  • mr simple||

    “People are going to jail for weed,” Babb said. “Things are getting so weird.

    He said after waking up from his hundred year nap.

  • Paul.||

    Nice.

  • ||

    Exactly. "Getting" is not the word I would use.

  • ||

    How 'bout when the defendant argues in court that the jury doesn't have to take the judge's view of the law?

    Valery Fabrikant killed four people at the Concordia University in 1992. After firing numerous defense attorneys, he represented himself at trial. He collected six contempt of the court judgement (calling the judge lawless, corrupt &c.) and both his defense and his summation was cut short (after 3 months and 4 days, respectively).

    He had a few exchanges with the judge regarding the jury's (non-)duty to heed the judge's instructions; although they weren't the direct cause of him being cut short, they did contribute to it.

    He was convicted (of first degree murders) and the appeals courts dismissed all of his appeals. In 2000, he was declared a "vexatious litigant"; he has to ask for permission from various courts and judges to be able to file lawsuits.

    So what's going on with him? Should he have been allowed to argue to the jury that they aren't bound by what the trial judge tells them of the law? Was he oppressed by the judge not allowing him to do so?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This seems to go beyond nullification.

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure what you're really asking- or maybe I'm taking you too literally. A sign on the street outside the courtroom that makes a point about a jury's rights and obligations is different than a statement made inside the court during a proceeding.

  • ||

    Should he have been allowed to argue to the jury that they aren't bound by what the trial judge tells them of the law?

    Yes.

    Was he oppressed by the judge not allowing him to do so?

    Yes.

    Of course, he can't harass the judge or the proceedings. But he can state occasionally, and certainly during summation, that the jury determines both the facts and the law and that they have the right to ignore the judge's instructions on the law.

    What's your point?

  • ||

    But he can state occasionally, and certainly during summation, that the jury determines both the facts and the law

    Fabrikan't position was that he was denied the right to present full answer and defense when the judge did not allow him to explore his entire employment history at Concordia (he thought that it proved some kind of provocation). He repeatedly argued that the jury should be told everything which he (Fabrikant) deems relevant for his defense; that it isn't the judge who is competent to decide what is relevant, but the jury; that the judge doesn't have the lawful right (or duty) to instruct the jury regarding what evidence and argument to consider -- or explicitly leave out of their considerations.

    For Fabricant the jury's right (or duty) to judge the law is meaningless if the law bars him from arguing to the jury that the Evidence Act -- as the law governing what counts as evidence to be considered by the jury -- itself should be judged by the jury: it should hear everything, then decide what counts as evidence, and decide what counts as a lawful defense.

    You see the problem? If the jury is the arbiter of the law, then the rules of proceeding themselves -- as far as they're set out by the law -- ought to be subject to the jury's judgement of the law -- at least according to Fabricant.

  • Juice||

    Then do away with the jury. They seem totally superfluous.

  • ||

    Fabrikant has a point. Rules of evidence are usually biased toward the state.

    But this does go beyond nullification. Why didn't the HandR moderators deny your motion to comment on those grounds?

  • ||

    Fabrikant has a point. Rules of evidence are usually biased toward the state.

    The problem in this case was that for all intents and purposes, Fabricant wanted to litigate his treatment at Concordia within the confines of his murder trial: he thought that if he proves that he was abused by some people and "the system" at the University (something which he obviously thought was the case), then he proved that it was reasonable for him to commit the killings: he was brought into such a state by the treatment he received over 13 years that the perceived provocation he received from his first victim reasonably triggered his killing spree. He was attempting a "battered person defense" and felt that he ought to have been able to present all aspects -- as he thought of them -- of it.

    But this does go beyond nullification.

    Or one can say that he did present his argument that the jury ought to be the judge of the law (some of the exchanges with the judge happened in the jury's presence) -- but it had no effect on the jury's verdict. To what extent was this ineffectiveness caused by the judge not allowing him to elaborate on this argument as much as he thought proper is debatable.

  • ||

    I trust you aren't trying to argue that the right of jury nullification -- i.e., the right of a juror not to be compelled to act as the state's agent against her better judgment -- should be jeopardized in all cases because some raving loon's 3-month-long defense was cut off over evidentiary questions.

  • ||

    the right of jury nullification

    The de facto right of jury nullification exists; even the Supreme Court of Canada accepts that, which otherwise frowns rather heavily on counsel mentioning or arguing it to the jury. My initial inquiry was specifically about the latter, i.e. educating the jury about such a right during the trial.

    raving loon

    There were two inquiries into what went on at Concordia: one of them (the Arthurs report had this to say at the start of its Conclusions:

    To summarize, we have confirmed the validity of a number of Dr. Fabrikant's more specific allegations. However, it is important to reiterate that these allegations were not made pro bono publico. They were the desperate recourse and the ultimate revenge of a very intelligent man who thought he had a career within his grasp, only to see it snatched away. In his own eyes, he had what his tormentors did not: intelligence; and they had what he did not: power and reputation. If he could not gain what he considered his just desserts - a tenured professorship - he seems to have been determined to deprive them of what they valued most - their research careers and the honours and opportunities those careers had earned them. We take no pleasure in acknowledging that our report lends support to so malevolent a purpose and credibility to so unsavoury an individual.

  • ||

    My initial inquiry was specifically about the latter, i.e. educating the jury about such a right during the trial.

    Four states (GA, IN, MD, OR) specifically recognize the right of juries to judge the law in their constitutions. I don't recall how well any of them secure it in the courtroom.

  • Zeb||

    I think he certainly should be allowed to make that argument, since it is true and all. But I can think of other reasons to cut him off. For practical reasons, at least, you can't just let a defendant waste everyone's time forever.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Not just that - but some lines of argument, without any evidence, should be stopped.

    For instance, what if they wanted to paint him as violent by using arguments at work - if those arguments were mostly rational and work based, then parading a bunch of people to complain about stupid arguments they may have lost could weight a juries decision when it shouldn't.

    Better is - what if he wanted to present an alternate theory that aliens did it.

    Same thing here - present enough alternate theories could easily cause unnecessary confusion - especially if there are no facts in evidence to sustain such a theory.

    Though in practice I think juries are selected by answering questions that basically amount to "I'll convict based upon little evidence" and judges' instructions are far too narrow and taken by most juries to be similar to the 10 commandments, rather than guidance given to those who can ignore it if they wish.

  • pmains||

    Babb has another campaign to raise more money on something called gofundme.com. This will keep the ad up for an additional week and pay for the printing of nullification pamphlets.

  • sarcasmic||

    Healthy-eating crusader set to hand out 'fat-shaming letters' to overweight children trick-or-treating instead of candy on Halloween

    Overweight children in Fargo Moorhead, North Dakota will get a letter about unhealthy eating habits instead of candy this Halloween

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....oween.html

    The letter, which has gone viral across the Internet, reads: 'You [sic] child is, in my opinion, moderately obese and should not be consuming sugar and treats to the extent of some children this Halloween season.

    'My hope is that you will step up as a parent and ration candy this Halloween and not allow your child to continue these unhealthy eating habits.'

    I hope someone has the sense to punch her in the face.

  • ||

    There had better be a metric fuckton of toilet paper draping her house come Friday morning.

  • ||

    It does appear she would encourage the little fatties to get some exercise.

  • Spoonman.||

    Fargo Moorhead?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I will never, ever understand the busybody motivation. My empathy doesn't stretch that far.

    I could never, for instance, imagine myself looking a bunch of chubby kids and deciding that I need to send their parents a note on their unhealthy eating habits. Never. It wouldn't even enter my thought process as a joke, or a far away possibility, or even something that someone else should do.

    Gawd. It'd be comedic if these types weren't so fucking powerful.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can see her running for public office.

  • ||

    Busybodies have just as little self-control as fatties and junkies. They don't see a difference between thinking a thing and acting on it.

  • ||

    So...they're projecting their own failings of self-control on others and then trying to control others because they can't control themselves?

  • ||

    Not even as complicated as projection or subliminal self-hatred. It's just a simple matter of self control. They think "lookit those fat kids!" and then carry it further by actually trying to "do something". The rest of us just stop at "lookit those fat kids".

  • KB Check Release||

    Gotta say I disagree with just about all of you hating on this woman. And talking about physical violence against her for free speech is classic. Sounds more like Gawker than Reason but whatever.

    She is not obligated to give free candy to anyone. It is absolutely her decision to whom she gives candy. Sure, fat kids won't like not receiving candy but too bad.

    Also, I think it is a stretch to call her a busybody. She isn't writing laws or policies that anyone else must live by and has every right to express an opinion. She isn't taking anyone's rights away. Unless you're the candy Fluke.

    I think it is projection by you folks assuming she is a fat person herself. I'm guessing it's you people who are projecting your dislike of being fat shamed onto her.

    Free speech = good

    Not everyone responds well to speech they disagree with. I get that. I commend her on withholding candy from children who are fat. They can get candy from other houses.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I hope someone has the sense to punch her in the face.

    Around here she would likely come to with MYOB written in industrial permanent marker across her forehead.

  • rhofulster||

    "District prosecutors ... have asked judges in three cases to ensure that jurors had neither seen nor been influenced by the billboard...."

    Does this give defendants grounds for appeal?

  • robc||

    “It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” -- Chief Justice John Jay, during jury instructions in Georgia v Brailsford (1794), one of 3 cases tried by the Supreme Court.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This shows that, before 1895, the judge's instructions were considered evidence of what the law is, but were not the law itself. Then the Supremes (over dissent) said that even if a trial judge mis-states the law, the jurors must follow his instructions anyway. Any mistakes in the instructions can only be corrected by an appeals court after the defendant is convicted. This is good for the legal profession, since the defendant has to pay extra legal fees to correct the trial judge's mistake. And he will have to indicate on questionnaires that he was convicted of a crime.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    How about when the prosecutor asks you about nullification yougive long, reasonable answers. You will get booted but the other jurors will have been exposed to your arguments.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think they'd cut you off and show you the door before your answer had a chance to get very long or reasonable.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Q: Will you apply the law as given to you by the judge, or will you follow your own ideas?

    A: I decline to answer because that is a false alternative.

    Q: No, it's not. There's only the two possibilities. Answer the question.

    A: There's also the option of following the laws of nature and of nature's God

    Q: So you would follow your own private notions instead of the judge's instructions?

    A: No. I would not let the judge impose his private notions on me.

    Judge: I've heard enough, you're dismissed. You're lucky I don't hold you in contempt. The other jurors will disregard the references to nature and nature's God.

  • General Butt Naked||

    When I did jury duty the only time that I talked to the lawyers was in voir dire. It's just you and them because they ask personal questions and you're under oath. When the judge instructed us it was in front of the courtroom with all participants present.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    My hypothetical example was about voir dire.

  • Andrew S.||

    Last time I was on jury duty I explained nullification to a bunch of my fellow jurors (about a dozen) during a lunch break. 'Twas fun.

  • ||

    And did you change any minds about the case? Or were you just having a random lunchtime discussion about the general idea of nullification?

  • Juice||

    In DC, they put you into a huge room with everyone waiting. It's a perfect opportunity to do some outreach.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    How do they check to see if the jurors have seen the billboard?

    Prosecutor: "Have you noticed any particular billboards about jury duty in the Metro?"

    Juror: "Well, I'm not sure. Which billboards so you mean?"

    P: "Um, the ones that talk about being a juror."

    J: "Like the ones telling us it's our civic duty? Yes, I think I've seen ads like that. I sure am proud to take part in this system as a citizen."

    P: "No... these are, um, different."

    J: "Maybe if you showed me a picture I could tell you more definitively."

    P: "..."

  • crazyfingers||

    But if we allow juries to nullify lynch mobs will go free!

    This is actually what liberals believe, in 2013.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement