A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue(blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk)
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2021/05/a-jurors-guide-to-going-rogue/
24 comments
I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.
I would go with random but with limited strikes on prosecution and unlimited strikes for defense.
I want to bias things in favor of defense. If the prosecution can't make the case given all their advantages, they should fail.
I want to bias things in favor of defense. If the prosecution can't make the case given all their advantages, they should fail.
AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check.
A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want someone in the jury that is openly racist.
A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want someone in the jury that is openly racist.
You're right, but in fact the judge can put their finger on one side of the scales. I was in voir dire for an obvious drug prosecution and before selection began, the judge eliminated anyone who thought the laws should be changed. That was in the late 90s in a (US) federal court.
We don't live in a binary world.
All this does is push precedent in one of two directions.
All this does is push precedent in one of two directions.
Very interesting read, thanks! Lots of weaponised logical fallacies.
Why does the author think the defendants actions were proportionate?
Proportionate means the good done outweighs the bad. But what good was accomplished by defendants actions?
To be proportionate, one has to consider and exclude actions with lesser bad effects. In this case, peacefully protesting and not harming anyone’s property.
If they had vigorously protested, but not harmed any property, would it fail to stop the bad effect?
Did their actions change Shells behavior? Does Shell even care? I’m betting their insurance company cares a lot more.
Edit: it also seems very unfair the defendant who pleaded guilty.
Proportionate means the good done outweighs the bad. But what good was accomplished by defendants actions?
To be proportionate, one has to consider and exclude actions with lesser bad effects. In this case, peacefully protesting and not harming anyone’s property.
If they had vigorously protested, but not harmed any property, would it fail to stop the bad effect?
Did their actions change Shells behavior? Does Shell even care? I’m betting their insurance company cares a lot more.
Edit: it also seems very unfair the defendant who pleaded guilty.
Feels like a pretty unethical article on an 'ethical' website. They clearly have a bias on the issues of the cases which they didn't even need to mention.
CGP Grey did a interesting video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
CGP Grey claim now you know the idea you might not be able to use it.
There have been a few arrests of different people advocating for jury nullification (Which I think only applies if you talk to actual jury members, hence why the arrests happen outside of court houses) ie https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-jurors/judge-to...
CGP Grey did a interesting video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
CGP Grey claim now you know the idea you might not be able to use it.
There have been a few arrests of different people advocating for jury nullification (Which I think only applies if you talk to actual jury members, hence why the arrests happen outside of court houses) ie https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-jurors/judge-to...
I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?
> with mini saying it’s illegal
In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury. It’s also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in an indirect way.
As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It’s a bad mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.
In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury. It’s also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in an indirect way.
As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It’s a bad mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.
I don’t believe this is the case. Please offer a citation. An attorney can’t argue for it but a juror surely must be able to or else it would never happen. Source: I’m a jury consultant and law student.
My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has final say. If the jury returns “not guilty”, that’s the end of it.
Generally correct in criminal cases, due to the law against double jeopardy.
There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If, for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy. The State could try you again for the same crime (and also try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the jury at the first trial).
Note that although a jury does not have the final say in the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule a jury's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their verdict.
Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the judge and any judges in future appeals).
If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution ones were telling the truth.
There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If, for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy. The State could try you again for the same crime (and also try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the jury at the first trial).
Note that although a jury does not have the final say in the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule a jury's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their verdict.
Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the judge and any judges in future appeals).
If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution ones were telling the truth.
> Is it illegal for a juror...
I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)
I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)
For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.
Why?
The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.
The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.
I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?
It doesn’t and can’t as long as the jurors don’t have to explain their decision.
No, passing a law against jurors advocating for jury nullification would probably be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason.
As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much.
Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.
In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason.
As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much.
Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.
Why is it against the law to conduct outside research?
Because the result of the case is not supposed to be influenced by information (especially not information specific to the case) that has not been presented in court and the parties didn't have opportunity to address/challenge.
Court is meant to be an authoritative process. The prosecution and defence are meant to present "the relevant facts".
Outside that, too many jurors might be influenced by what a Kardashian thinks...
Outside that, too many jurors might be influenced by what a Kardashian thinks...
https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_M...