Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of a crime, but it must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. In the case of a positive identification of accused-appellants, there was no conclusive evidence to prove the existence of conspiracy among the accused or any overt act on their part regarding the commission of the crime. Implied conspiracy is proven through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
Conspiration requires conclusive proof to maintain its substance. It is not a crime in Philippine law, but it is punished as such only when the defendant has a common intent or design to commit the crime. The prosecution must prove both an intent to commit a crime and the agreement to commit the crime.
In Florida, the state does not require proof that there was any meeting between the perpetrators, but the state must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. In this case, law enforcement must prove that there was an agreement, and raising reasonable doubts about the existence of an agreement is often an effective defense. Competent and convincing circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish conspiracy.
According to People vs. Cabrera,29 conspiracies are essential for establishing a guilty verdict. To prove conspiracy, the facts must satisfy a three-part Carter test: has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the conspiracy? has the conspiracy been established by the defendant?
📹 The Law You Won’t Be Told
Special thanks: McSteed TV: https://www.youtube.com/mcsteedinc Scott Weinberg: http://michigancriminallawyerspc.com …
How to prove malicious damage in Nigeria?
Destroying or damaging property is a crime under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) at Act Sect 195. The prosecution must prove that the property belonged to another person or the accused and another person, and the destruction or damage was done maliciously, with intent or recklessness. If the property value exceeds $5000, the offence is a Table 1 offence, dealt with in the Local Court unless an election is made for trial on indictment by the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP). If the property does not exceed $5000, the offence is a Table 2 offence, dealt with in the Local Court unless an election is made for trial on indictment by the DPP or the accused.
What is the burden of proof in evidence law in Nigeria?
This study examines the burden of proof under the Nigerian Evidence Act of 2011, focusing on its application in civil and criminal cases. The analysis uses primary and secondary sources, including case laws, statutory provisions, and scholarly literature, to understand the legal principles and procedural frameworks governing burden of proof. The burden of proof is divided into two dimensions: the obligation to establish a case (general burden) and the duty to adduce evidence on a particular fact or issue (evidential burden).
In civil cases, the burden of proof is governed by the balance of probabilities, requiring parties to present more likely true evidence than not true. The Act outlines a procedural framework for the allocation of the burden of proof, ensuring equitable distribution and thorough adjudication of pertinent issues. In criminal cases, the burden rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, reflecting the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. The study emphasizes the foundational importance of burden of proof in the administration of justice and its implications in legal practice.
What are the 4 parts of a one-act play?
A single act of dramatic literature shares common elements with the short story. The essential components of a dramatic work are the following: theme, plot, characterization, and dialogue.
What are the technical elements of one-act play?
One-act plays are akin to short stories in that they combine theme, plot, characterization, and dialogue in order to convey a single significant event within a limited timeframe. This format allows for the highlighting of the protagonist’s character development and the central theme.
What is Section 12 of the Nigerian Evidence Act?
The text outlines various sections of evidence in criminal proceedings, including the admissibility of evidence under other legislation, the relevance of facts forming part of the same transaction, factors that are the occasion, cause or effect of the facts in issue, motive, preparation and previous or sub-sequent conduct, facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, things said or done by the conspirator in reference to common intention, certain facts relevant in proceedings for damages, facts showing existence of state of mind, body or bodily feeling, facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional, existence of course of business when relevant, discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence, matters court to take into account under section 14, what customs admissible, judicial notice of custom, evidence of customs, relevant facts as to how matter alleged to be custom understood, admission defined, admission by privies, persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit, persons expressly referred to by party to suit, proof of admissions against persons making them, oral admissions as to contents of documents, admissions in civil cases, confessions not conclusive proof; but may estop, confessions not conclusive proof; and weight to be attached to admissible statements.
The text also discusses the admissibility of certain evidence for proving the truth of facts stated in it, such as statements made under any criminal procedure legislation, statements of defendant at preliminary investigation or coroner’s inquest, written statements of investigating police officers in certain cases, absence of public officers, entries in books of account, entries in public records made in performance of duty, statements in maps, charts and plans, statements as to fact of public nature contained in certain acts or notifications, certificates of specified government officers to be sufficient evidence in all criminal cases, certificates of Central Bank officers as evidence in criminal cases, service of certificates on other parties before hearing, genuineness of certificates to be presumed, previous judgments admissible to bar a second suit or trial, opinions inadmissible except as provided in this Act, opinions of experts, foreign law, customary law and custom, facts bearing upon opinions of experts, handwriting, existence of “general custom or right” when admissible, usages and tenets when admissible, opinions on relationship, grounds of opinion when admissible, character defined, and generally inadmissible in civil cases.
The text outlines various sections related to the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, including the burden of proof, the burden of proof in civil cases, the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the rules for interpreting documents. It also discusses the importance of character in affecting damages, the necessity of notice in libel and slander, the admissibility of documentary evidence, the admissibility of statements in documents produced by computers, the proof of contents of documents, primary and secondary evidence, the nature of secondary evidence, rules for notice to produce, proof of facts, and the application of this Part.
The text also covers the types of documents that can be used as proof, such as public, private, certified copies, certified copies, and other official documents. Courts may order proof by affidavit, which can be filled, sworn in Nigeria, or not sworn before certain persons. Oral evidence must be direct and inspection is necessary when referring to real evidence.
The text also covers the burden of proof in civil cases, such as the burden of proof when the commission of crime is in issue and guilt of crime is asserted. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant by law, and the burden of proving facts is necessary to make evidence admissible.
The text also covers the burden of proof in criminal cases, such as the burden of proof in terms of judgments, contracts, grants, and other dispositions of property. It also covers the burden of proof in relation to relationships, powers of attorney, public maps and charts, books, telegraphic and electronic messages, due execution of documents not produced, handwriting, etc., and proper custody.
The text also provides rules for presumptions by the court, such as the genuineness of certified copies, documents produced as records of evidence, gazettes, newspapers, Acts of the National Assembly, and documents admissible in other countries without proof or seal or signature. It also covers the assumption of powers of attorney, the age of parties to a conveyance or instrument, statements in documents twenty years old, deeds of corporations, death from seven years absence, legitimacy, marriage, and the existence of certain facts.
Lastly, the text discusses the concept of estoppel, which is the right to testify in court proceedings. Estoppel can be granted to the tenant, licensee of person in possession, bailee, agent, and licensee, as well as the person signing an act of lading.
In conclusion, the text provides a comprehensive guide to the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the rules for interpreting documents.
The Section 12 Evidence Act 2011 is a comprehensive legislation that outlines the requirements for witnesses in criminal cases. It covers various aspects such as the competence of the person charged to give evidence, the role of witnesses in civil suits, and the competence of witnesses in criminal cases. The Act also addresses the issue of compellability, the production of title deeds or other documents of witnesses not a party, and the production of documents that another person could refuse to produce.
The Act also covers the number of witnesses, the charges against them, the speed limit, sedition, oral evidence, and the order of production and examination of witnesses. It also covers the order and direction of examination, cross-examination, and the production of documents without giving evidence. The Act also covers the questioning of witnesses, including leading questions, evidence as to matters in writing, cross-examination, and impeaching credit of witnesses.
The Act also covers the right of adverse parties to use writing to refresh memory, the production of documents, the exclusion of evidence on grounds of public interest, and the use of documents produced on notice. It also provides for the power of judges to put questions or order the production of documents, as well as the power of assessors to put questions.
The Act also covers the right of adverse parties to testify to facts stated in a document mentioned in section 239, the right of adverse parties to use writing to refresh memory, and the production of documents. It also covers the interpretation of “court” in this Part, subpoenas or witness summons, and orders for the production of prisoners.
The Act also covers the interpretation of “court” in this Part, the power of assessors to put questions, and the interpretation of “court” in other states. It also covers the wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, the interpretation of “court” in this Part, and the ordering of subpoenas or witness summons.
In summary, the Section 12 Evidence Act 2011 provides a comprehensive framework for the examination and examination of witnesses in criminal cases. It covers various aspects such as the admissibility of evidence, the right of adverse parties to use writing to refresh memory, and the interpretation of the “court” in criminal proceedings.
What is Section 127 of the Nigerian Evidence Act?
This section addresses the application of the Part, which concentrates on the examination of oral evidence as a form of real evidence, the interpretation of documents, and the reduction of judgments, contracts, and grants.
What are the elements of criminal misappropriation in Nigeria?
The accused is accused of misappropriating, converting, disposing of, and intentionally allowing others to do or commit the same act, as well as acting dishonestly. These accusations are made against the accused for having been entrusted with property or dominion.
What are the 6 elements of one-act play?
A one-act play is a literary composition consisting of a setting, plot, structure, characters, conflict, theme, and atmosphere. It is a dramatic performance with various elements and often involves a large audience. A play tells a narrative about various topics, such as musical themes, political, historical, and mythical. It is typically performed live before the audience and allows them to interact with the actors. The plot or conflict is simple, and the characters grow or change over time.
What are the ingredients of conspiracy in Nigeria?
A conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal act, with one of the parties acting in accordance with the agreement.
What are the ingredients of malicious prosecution in Nigeria?
The defendant initiated a prosecution against the plaintiff, subsequently terminated it in the plaintiff’s favor, lacked reasonable cause for doing so, and acted with malice.
What is the difference between one act and drama?
A one-act play is a complete theatrical work that is presented in a single act. In contrast, a drama may be comprised of multiple acts, each with distinct scenes and plot developments.
📹 Treason; Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason; Misprision of Treason (Article 114-116, RPC)
Article 114 – Treason 0:29 Elements of treason 1:39 Definition of treason 2:18 Definition of allegiance 2:57 Who are the offenders …
I remember once my teacher was talking about a time he was in a jury for a burglary trial. A man allegedly robbed a jewellery story of 30K worth of diamonds and was facing court. The thing is, the entire jury team felt sorry for the man because he had a family and was struggling. The jury all decided to simply deem him not guilty out of pity and so the man was released. Teacher didn’t know about nullification. All he did was practice it.
3:03 In any trial which requires the jury to be unanimous, a single determined juror can hang the jury, causing a mistrial. Prosecutors might not want to spend the resources it would take to bring the defendant to court again, especially if they believe that the result will be another hung jury or even an acquittal. A single nullifying juror could be highly effective, for better or worse.
For anyone wanting to use this info to get out of jury duty, you don’t go in yelling “jury nullification!”. They will likely charge you with contempt for that (because you are essentially saying that you will attempt to poison the jury). Instead, all you have to say is “”I won’t say someone is guilty if I think it is an unjust law that they have broken, even if it is obvious that they committed the crime.” The judge will know exactly what you mean, and they will dismiss you with no further questions.
So, the thing about it supposedly being against those questions that people ask you before you’re on the jury. Since nullification exists as a consequence of the law, it is based strictly on the law, and therefore if you answer that you are fine making decisions purely based on the law, you are not lying. Nullification is part of the law, just unintentional.
Jury nullification is pretty much the whole point of having a jury in the first place. This is why lawyers and Judges hate it as it was always about the people controlling justice not the courts. Judges in the US have way to much power via plea bargains despite jury nullification. Which is the real reason for so many coerced plea (overcharged cases) bargains by the way.
In New Hampshire, the right of jury nullification is now a required part of the judge’s jury instruction. Paraphrase “If you believe the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt but you think that a guilty verdict would bring about an unjust result, you may find the defendant not guilty”.
I got a jury summons years ago and simply told them that I was usually the defendant in most cases and might be a little prejudiced. I also told them about my lawyer at one point sharing proprietary information with the prosecutor and then her being appointed to a judgeship. I was dismissed and haven’t been contacted again 20 years and not counting.
I was summoned 25 years ago, and was asked if there was a reason I shouldn’t serve, and I told them I was a witness in a manslaughter trial, and fell asleep. I woke up during recess, and the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorneys were jokingly betting about the outcome, and that I had zero faith in lawyers, and all judges were lawyers once.
Everyone needs to take a moment to appreciate the fact CGP squeezes so much information into such a short amount of time, especially considering YT creators can make a lot more money when their articles are over 8 minutes long. A article like this would be SUPER easy to stretch out over 8 minutes simply by slowing it down. This person is literally choosing to earn less income for the same amount of work, simply for the sake of producing a higher quality product. We need more content creators like this.
I know that in the state of Georgia, juries are REQUIRED to be instructed by the judge about jury nullification. Incidentally, it was due to jury nullification that Al Capone was never convicted of violating the Prohibition Act. The juries knew he had done it, but didn’t think alcohol should have been illegal. As for the possibility of a third verdict, that exists in Scotland. There, the options are guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The difference between not guilty and not proven, is that with not proven, the charges can be reintroduced at a later date.
Darrell Brooks just dropped a hint he might inform the Jury about Jury Nullification the day before the closing arguments were supposed to start in the Christmas Parade trial in Wisconsin. The judge, who has been very patient with him considering how he has acted in court, about flipped out and told him under no circumstances is he to discuss Jury Nullification with the jury in his closing arguments.
I got dismissed immediately by the judge once on nullification grounds. The defendant had a previous felony record and was being charged with unlawful ownership of firearms. He’s completed his entire previous sentence and this was the only offense he was charged with. I happen to believe that if you’ve fully paid your debt to society, then ALL of your civil rights should be restored…including the right to bear arms. So when the prosecutor asked me that question about my beliefs I said “he served his previous sentence right? Then he committed no crime and the State of California is wrong.” Judge dismissed me on the spot.
Hypothetical question: My courthouse has a lot of buildings (mostly attorney’s offices) around it. A lot of those buildings have billboards for lease on the sides of them… What if I lease a billboard and have them put up a sign that explains what jury nullification is? Or simply… JURY NULLIFICATION: LOOK IT UP. How long until I start getting phone calls, nasty letters, or knocks on my door?
Jury nullification has been around for a long time. It’s a natural consequence of the Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. And while in an extreme case it may be an ultimate safety valve it actually has very limited utility as an expression of the “Will of the People.” Jury nullification is merely the expression of a jury’s disinclination for some reason to convict a person who quite probably is guilty of the crime charged. It is the natural consequence of the prohibition of double jeopardy and works because the prosecution may not appeal a jury verdict of acquittal — even when under the evidence and law the defendant was unquestionably guilty. Jury nullification doesn’t change the law. It’s not precedent. The law exists and continues to exist and can be applied in other cases. Jury nullification has only let a guilty person off. For jury nullification to work the jury must acquit. That means that all the jurors necessary for acquittal must agree even when they have accepted based on the evidence that the defendant is guilty, and they must so agree even though they had been instructed by the judge that they are to apply the law as explained by him to the facts as they, the jury, find. While a single juror can generally cause a hung jury, a hung jury merely results in a mistrial; and the defendant can be retried. Jury nullification only has meaning in criminal cases. A plaintiff can appeal an adverse verdict in a civil case. Jury nullification works only to the extent that the prohibition on double jeopardy applies.
Ok so let me get this straight…if I go into a trial yelling ” jury nullification ” and get arrested for contempt then take that case to a jury trial where I get to testify about how I yelled jury nullification then I essentially just tainted the entire jury and would have to pick a new jury and just get myself stuck in a catch 22…huh…this sounds like fun. What if you could use this premeditated like you would have a shirt that said it on there or even like tatto it to your forehead so that when they give a description of you as the suspect they have to say the word and get the case thrown out that that way…
Jurors are becoming more and more ignorant. Perjury? No one enforces that law. Had trial a little while back. The “victim” lied on the stand 5 times, I was able to prove it. I was still convicted based on his testimony alone. I had 3 three people to testify contrary to him, including myself being one of those 3. Of course, I appealed and won later, but he still got away with lying though.
thank you, i have been summoned to serve jury duty, despite after stating my beliefs prejudice me and i can not be impartial, as well as having had a head injury that affects my short term memory from becoming long term. was trying to remember the word for an unconstitutional law, but this works. i just know there are a great deal of unconstitutional laws i would like removed from the books
As a witness you are sworn in to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as you know it. But the instant you sit down the lawyers do everything they can to get you to say ONLY the PARTS of the truth that they want to be heard. If you ask the judge ” Please your Honor, will I be allowed to say what I was just sworn in to say without interuptions?”, you will be declared a “hostile witness” & most likely be told “you may return to your seat” along with some form of “I am done with the witness”. If you explain all this to the judge & lawyers the day you show up for jury duty, when they pick out who will be in the jury box or an alternate juror, you get excused from doing any jury duty & are sent home. No matter what you are sworn in to do, you will never get the chance to “tell the whole truth”, not ever.
I’m a firm believer that just because something is ILLEGAL doesn’t mean it is WRONG. So if someone breaks a law, but what they did is not WRONG or harmful to someone else or their property, there was no crime committed. And believe me, people are prosecuted for victim-less crimes more than anything else. It is absolutely your duty as a juror to declare that person not guilty even if there are 100 witnesses, DNA evidence, an HD article, and a signed confession proving he did it.
There is one additional argument for jury nullification. The ninth amendment. The enumeration of rights within the law can’t be used to deny other rights people may have. So, should a jury find that a defendant has a right that is nowhere stated in the law, they would have the constitutional duty to uphold that right. For example, suppose a state has laws against euthanasia, and attempts to convict a wife for killing her dying husband who is in a lot of pain. A jury could find that a right exists for this woman to perform that action and declare her not-guilty.
Yeah I’ve seen articles cops/guards arresting or telling people what they are doing is illegal when they are standing on or near courthouse public grounds (that are open to the public) and give out jury nullification leaflets. They seem to hate it what someone is trying to inform others about their rights.
So weird, I just filled out a jury application sent by the state and I was thinking how I could get out of it and I logically came to the conclusion that telling them in the questionair that I would purposefully try and cause a kangaroo court by means of manipulation and gas lighting I stood the best chance of never being picked. Glad to know that had a name!
As a lawyer, I think juries should be told the truth: That jurors are entitled determine both law and facts, and can’t be punished for delivering a verdict the court agrees with. I think the CA voters should pass a measure requiring courts to tell jurors that they have a right to judge the law and practice jury nullification!👍
Actually the prosecutors asked me this during the jury selection: “Do you think you can make a judgement based on a law how is written even if you disagree with?” Because I can be coerced to follow a bad law, but I don’t have to be willingly part of enforcing it, I replied “NO” without lying. I was excused. Otherwise,if you feel that you SHOULD answer “yes”, it means that you agree with what the prosecutor question implies – that there is no need for jury of peers, you are just an automaton applying the law, exactly how you are instructed by them.
It’s ironic. I saw this article just a few days before I was scheduled to go to jury duty, and so I was expecting to hear that question: “do you have any beliefs…?” They never said it, and even more interesting, the judge talked to the entire room of potential jurors and actually talked about jury nullification. He didn’t come out and say “you know, you can pick any verdict you want,” but he did mention two time periods (old England and prohibition America) when juries would find people not guilty despite the evidence, because they felt the punishment didn’t fit the crime. He also said that the legal system and the laws of those countries were forever changed by those nullifications, and that those changes were for the better, implying juries should strive to nullify for a better legal system and/or laws. Weird. If I hadn’t seen this article, I don’t think I would’ve caught that. 🙂
For decades, I have advocated for jury nullification in ALL cases where a defendant is accused of a so-called crime, which has no real victim. Drugs and prostitution come to mind. Now… come arrest me! I’ll have a great time informing the jury about nullification in my closing statement. If the rest of my fellow citizens learned about this, we could avoid lots of wasted time and money in the judicial system.
“Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?” Jury candidate who believes in jury nullification: “No, I don’t.” This is not perjury. Here’s why: We often forget that laws passed by Congress, legislatures, city councils, whatever, are ALWAYS subordinate to the Constitution. The ultimate law of the land is the Constitution, which affirms our individual rights. So if a law violates rights, it is not constitutionally legitimate, and you can nullify it while still being honest about “strictly deciding on the law.” Strictly speaking, the Constitution is the law.
I served on the grand jury once. there were some cases we asked the DA if there were greater charges we could bring, and some where we thought the arrest was because of the letter of the law but the intent wasn’t being followed and dismissed. If ever asked to be on a jury again, that’s how I’ll explain my “yes” reasons.
Remember this: Lawyers (both sides) do not want intelligent people on juries. If the case is about a vehicular mechanical reason, they do not want mechanics on the jury. If the case is about computers, they do not want any one with any knowledge about computers. Both sides fear an intelligent juror. That is why you have Voir Dior – the right to remove any person (3x) for any reason. They want jurors (so they can hold up a blue pen and say, “ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this is a green pen” – the jurors then nod, “Yep, the pen is green.”) They also want obedient jurors. Obedient Jurors never ask questions. they never do anything that the judge does not want to happen.
I think nullification is a very important option, and should not be punished or avoided. Imagine a small orphan boy, starving and sick, stealing a small loaf of bread from a plump baker. Was he guilty? Of course. But should he really be punished? He was only doing what he needed to survive. He needed it more than the baker, after all
To my knowledge there are also 2 ways to say I’m guilty but don’t charge me (I forgot their names I think one started with Mala) one stated that you were forced to do it like someone had your family hostage so you robbed a store and one says you did it to prevent a greater evil like you killed a man to avoid him shooting 10 babies or something
lol — I would never get accepted in to a jury. I have way to many beliefs that would exclude me. Unfortunately, probably most people are the exact same way but are either not willing or not able to admit the fact of their own prejudices. The idea of a truly “impartial” jury—of the defendants so-called “peers” no less—seems to me to be pure fantasy, and this simply based on the fundamentals of human nature.
Jury Nullification kickstarter. Permission to link to your article. Hello. I am trying to buy air time on the radio to make people aware of Jury Nullification. I was hoping to link to your article on the topic. I see it as being very clear and uncluttered with any agendas. May I have permission to link to it in my kickstarter. I would have a line that would say, “Click here for more info on Jury Nullification.” I can put a disclaimer that you are not associated with the Jury Nullification Project..
Rape shield laws mean that you can never be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. If a woman has a history of falsely accusing men of rape, the court would withhold this information, so as not to ‘prejudice the jury’. As a juror, you can never know for sure what, potentially important, information has been withheld in these cases. Jury nullification isn’t merely a logical consequence of the two items mentioned; it’s a final check against tyranny, and unjust laws.
I believe that if there are theoretically things that are illegal but not WRONG, then the law should be changed BEFOREHAND. every person in this country has the power to advocate for changes in laws and at the end of the day, if a law is written with the possibility of unjustly punishing someone for doing GOOD, then instead of dealing with it when it comes up in trial (which is a lot more complicated) campaign for the law to be changed beforehand so that come a trial we have a “perfect” set of laws that are congruent to good vs bad.
Trust me, the moment you bring up any form of conflict of interest, you’re out on your arse, for better or worse (better). If one also has issues with practical management, you’ll be excused from the panel just as quickly. Like, nullification is one of those things that is abstract, and it’s easier to allow one’s disadvantages to have them excused instead. Jury Duty should not be compulsory, that’s garbage.
Hardcore Absolute Fact: NEVER answer trap questions and never agree to trap statements! Just claim : ” I honorably cannot answer that question” ” I neither agree nor disagree with that statement ” ” I do not have enough sufficient evidence to make a statement at this time ” or ” That question limits my sovereign rights to act accordingly “
Why would you ever suggest that a jury not know their duties as a juror. It is a jurors duty to not only judge the facts of the case but also the law. We should not let corrupt judges threaten us, they are merely bullies breaking their own laws. It is the jurors job to determine the validity of the law in question and the facts of the case. This was an important tool to stop political corruption. Even if the politicians wrote unjust laws the people could overthrow them in the courts via the jury. This is one of the unspoken checks and balances within the system. It is intended. We cannot allow corrupt individuals to break their own laws, and the suggest that one should be afraid of those which break our laws is silly. Do not be scared of them, they have no case for throwing you in jail for telling the truth.
I don’t see why anyone would want to do Jury Duty unless they have nothing better to do, or are genuinely interested in a trial. Or maybe if your employer is generous and pays you fully while you are in court. I just got summoned for jury duty, with the trial estimated to be 40 days long. That’s right, FORTY days. FOUR, ZERO. Forty. Now here’s the kicker, I could be fined for $2000 if I don’t show up and ignore my jury duty. Yet if I DO show up in court, and not go to work for 40 days, I will easily have lost well over $2000 in salary.
Everyone, donate to the CGP Grey Subbable. I’m donating the equivalent of 1 latte a week. If everyone gave that much, I’m pretty sure the world would be a better place. Meaning, CGP would be drinking all the coffee and might reach Caffeine Nirvana, hire a couple of editors/massage-therapists and put out a article once a week.
I might actually like to serve on a jury some time in order to know what it is like and also to get a break from my regular job, as well as the public service aspect of it. I am interested in philosophy of law. However, I have a philosophy degree and I knew when I got into it that lawyers typically aren’t going to want to mess with philosophy majors being on juries. So I doubt I will ever be chosen.
So i watched hundreds of american crime series to know what a jury looks like but i still don’t quiet get it. So they are basically random american citizen who observe the trial, observe the evidence and what not, get locked up from the outside world and have to agree on a judgement or not agree in which case there is no condemnation. I don’t get it, how do they have qualification to rule a judgement? Isn’t there a huge chance to be manipulated by emotional pleading?
In Canada and other commonwealth countries, this is dealt with by allowing the Crown to appeal a not guilty verdict and obtain a retrial of the defendant. Thus “double jeoardy” bars further prosecution only when the defendant has been “finally acquitted,” that is to say, after being acquitted by a jury, and the acquittal has been upheld on appeal. That procedure was once possible in the United States, see Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, but the Supreme Court overruled the Palko case in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, when it held that the Double Jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment was binding on the states.
I’d like to point out to you, CGP Grey, if you ever read this. To insinuate that an anarchist would be condone violence and hatred is simply offensive. We do not hate nor do we commit acts of violence, we Anarchists simply believe in the right of self rule and Common Law. Should a person be punished for murder? Yes. Should a person be punished for Fraud? Yes. Should a person be punished for Theft? Yes. Should a person be punished for taking drugs? No. This action effects the person taking the drugs, no one else, you could argue there is an emotional pain on the family member, but the person is not putting another’s life in danger, only their own. That is punishment enough. Should a person be punished for being homeless? No, why should a man be put in jail, simply because he has no place to sleep? Should a person be punished for wishing to live off the grid and become self-sustainable? No, so many Self-Sustaining Communities are being ravaged by Court Ordered Police, for the simple crime of not contributing OR taking away from the economy, they grow their own food, filter their own water (which is a public resource), heat their own homes and make their own electricity. Apparently that’s against the law. We Anarchists, CGP Grey, have but one agenda, for each man and woman on this Earth, to have the right to be free of taxes, free of the city and free of unfair rule, such as the laws I stated above. We do not condone violence, fraud or theft and we strictly follow Common Law, you may know it as “The Law of the Land”.
I have one problem with this article: It repeatedly states that the nullification rule is a consequence of a just legal system. I assert that the American legal system is not just, for various reasons including the difficulty of challenging problematic laws and the acceptance of various unreliable evidences, as well as the reliance on a small number of fallible people to decide the fate of another. The last is utterly ridiculous, by the way. For one thing, people on a jury are explicitly told to follow the weight of the evidence and not be influenced by any sort of bias or exception. If they do not follow this, it can lead to a mistrial. But if jurors are not allowed to think independently or judge the justness of the law, then what is the point of a jury at all? Put a computer up there, and it will come to the same conclusions the jury does with a much smaller margin of error. People, rightly, get uncomfortable with the prospect of a legal system run by robots (due to the problematic consequences of following the letter of the law as written), but it already is run by logical input without any thoughtful intervention. Making the jury a computer would just make this obvious. People like a jury, because it makes them feel comfortable that there is a human sense of justice in the system. But there isn’t; the jurors’ hands are tied. The only way to put a human sense of justice in the system is to write it into the law. I say we throw away the jury entirely as useless and rework the law to compensate.
But the question “Donyou have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?”…and one answers “no”, they would not be lying because they are not automatically going to nullify a verdict before hearing the case and if upon hearing the evidence happen to nullify a verdict, they are only working within the parameters set by the law. So thanks for the needless fear mongering.
Maybe it’s just me, but there’s something inherently wrong about the idea of a law that’s deliberately hidden from the public. Laws, what people can or should do, is information that everyone needs to be aware of, even if it causes headaches for officials. Do do otherwise, to purposely obscure the rules, just feels sinister 😟
I’ll go you one further. A jury can also eject a judge that they see as being disruptive or biased. If the judge attempts to fight this the JURY can decry contempt of court upon the Judge. A jury can even declare a mistrial. A judge is just an orderly of the court when a jury is present. Jury groups can also reject arbitrary limitations given them by prosecutors. It’s a trial by peers, not a judge with a peanut gallery.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. Frédéric Bastiat When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Say no to the question about “based on the law” because JURY NULLIFICATION IS THE LAW. And it is your right as a juror. So do not be afraid to say NO. They will be hard press to convict you of perjury. Jury deliberations are not subject to judicial review. Neither is who cast what vote. Our government exists as long as “We the people” want it to exist.
10 years ago I was pulled over for “speeding” down a hill in the mountains. Cop wrote me a ticket for a tail light not-functioning. I take care of my car, this was a no-go. He showed up looking hungover the morning of the hearing, said I was speeding. My demand of a jury trial was met with, “What defense will you use, Mr. Dead Thomas the Tank Engine?” “Jury Nullification, your honor” Dismissed, still had to pay $25 to teh courts.
Should have mentioned the Zenger case. Publisher of the The New York Weekly Journal and criticized the governor of New York. He was tried for libel. In those days (pre revolution) truth was not a defense against a charge of libel. He was obviously guilty since he had written the things he was accused of, but the jury found him innocent anyway. This is the case that established jury nullification and freedom of the press in America.
Christ this is so overstated and dramatic. 1. Lawyers “don’t tell people” about Nullification because we can’t tell jurors anything that might influence their decision. You have the internet, the information is public, so it’s not like it’s being hidden. We also don’t remind jurors that they can pass a guilty or not guilty verdict, for the same reason. It’s not some ‘forbidden word’, because it’s still talked about outside of situations where you’re a juror on the case we’re involved in. The idea that it’s somehow forbidden comes from the arrest of two men who were handing out pamphlets on Nullification to people as they went into serve on juries, which is jury tainting. 2. You aren’t going to be taken out of future jury duty for a nullification, in fact you CAN’T. As long as you’re registered for jury duty, you can and will eventually be selected – the process is automated and random, and there’s no way to take someone out unless they fail to meet the criteria for jury selection (meaning they have enlisted into the military, are civil servants, or are fire/police). You can’t even be removed in the voir dire, because you do not have anything that meets the criteria for removal. 3. One person can’t nullify a jury, you’d still have to agree on it like any other verdict. So you’d have to get enough of the jury on your side to declare nullification. Remember, declaring a non-agreed-upon verdict as the Foreman IS still prejury. 4. Also, he never mentioned that Nullification Verdicts are still verdicts, and thus can be appealed or overturned.
Never been selected for jury duty. As part of a high school classroom exercise we actually were given a full dramatization of an actual previous trial presentation, I was a rarity in that I actually cared about the evidence presented and selected “Innocent” while everyone else simply wanted to declare “guilty” for the “LOLZ” – this being back in the 1980s in my high school. Never been selected for jury duty.
Given that jury nullification is an extension of the law, believing and acting on jury nullification does not prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law. As the law does indeed say that your verdict need not be based on the evidence (otherwise a jury could be punished for a ‘wrong’ verdict). So you could answer no and technically not lie. However if they asked “do you believe in jury nullification and the right to do such” and you answered no, then you’d be lying.
Not telling people about Jury Nullification and Refusing to let people serve on a Jury if they know about it, in practice, is the same as prohibiting Juries from Using Jury Nullification. And if Jury Nullification is prohibited in practice, then that Means Juries must Rule “Guilty” If someone violates a Law, Even If the laws are Tyrannical and Enforcement of Said laws would amount to a Crime far Greater than what the Defendant was Charged with committing. Without Jury Nullification, that Northern Jury would’ve been forced to send slaves back into slavery because they committed the ‘Crime’ of trying to be Free. …Is that The Society we Want to live in? Do you want to live in that World?
I’m still curious how the actually plea works. Like they ask you “How do you plead?” Do you say “Not Guilty” even if you did the crime and you just feel you shouldn’t be punished for it and think the Jury will agree? Or do you say “I plead Jury Nullification” and then leave the whole court and specifically the ignorant jurors like “What the hell is that?”
If I needed to defend myself against some alleged crime I’d sure as heck want my Jury to be aware of Jury Nullification. I suppose the trick would be planting the idea into them without the judge and / or prosecuting lawyer noticing what I was doing and charge me with contempt of court. That same thing is probably why defense lawyers don’t just always argue for “not guilty” and sometimes only argue for a less serious charge than that of the prosecution.