The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It's Routine

[John Kilduff]

John Silveira column


Judges routinely rig juries against defendants and prosecutors play along. How? The judge asks the prospective jurors the following question: “Will you bring a verdict of guilty, even if you disagree with the law, if the prosecutor proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt?" Then all prospective jurors who answer in the negative are automatically excluded from jury duty.

As the Silveira column points out, "Our jury system is supposed to be a buffer between us--the citizens--and the government. It is there to prevent the abuse of power that governments have exercised since the dawn of civilization. Juries do not exist as an arm of the court, rather they are there as an arm of the people so that our own government can never arbitrarily throw those it has accused of crimes into jails like some banana republic dictatorships do. Nor can it fine them, confiscate their property, or execute them without the people’s consent."

The article then goes on to cite a famous experiment by Stanley Milgram, of Yale university, wherein test "teaching" subjects were to shock learning subjects in order to facilitate their learning. The shocks were fake but the subjects didn't know that. The shocks were also on a scale ranging "up to 450 volts". Now anyone should have known, from the pain evinced by the "learning" subjects, that something was wrong when they contorted in agony at the higher voltages. The "teaching" subjects should have used their judgment to stop when they saw the increasing levels were causing great pain. But fully 60% did not stop. They went along with their instructions, following the authority which told them to.

That means only 40% followed their consciences.

A jury has 12 persons. So perhaps 40% of those 12 would normally follow their consciences, and refuse to convict a runaway slave, or to sentence a man to death for a petty crime such as stealing a package of bubble gum or for a parking violation.

But those 40% have been removed from the jury pool by the judge's pre-qualifying question. So what is left are people who would convict someone if it is the law even if it is against their conscience.

That is not the purpose of juries. Juries are not an extension of the government or the courts. Juries are what keeps us all from falling under government tyranny.

When judges and prosecutors remove those prospective jurors who might vote their conscience, they defeat one of the most important purposes of a trial by jury, and undermine the original intent of our trial-by-jury system.

Rigged juries: it's routine today.

Maybe this also helps explain why nearly two-thirds of all death sentences are later overturned, or why 7% of all persons who have been on death row have been later cleared by DNA evidence alone.
see another John Silveira column

In my opinion, our criminal justice system needs great overhaul in many ways. One of those ways should be that judges and prosecutors should not be allowed to remove prospective jurors who would vote their conscience - as the jury sytem was originally intended to operate. Moreover, judges should have to instruct jurors that they may vote their consciences and that the case is in their hands.

80% of prisoners today are there for self-consenting "crimes", or "crimes where they consented with another" - not for violent crimes or for transgressions against others. This is a tragedy, and it is a travesty that judges are permitted to instruct jurors that they must find a guilty verdict even if they disagree with the law, as long as the prosecutor proves his case. It is a travesty of justice that jurors who would vote their conscience are pre-emptively removed from the jury pool. Because what that leaves are only yes-men to authority in the jury pool, only those who will do what authority tells them to do even if they know it is wrong or bad.

And that's not justice.

[govman6767]

Look I do not disagree with you especially in criminal trials.

But what about civil trials where juries are awarding million dollar awards to idiots who spill coffee on themselves.

They are awarding little old ladies millions at the expense of the big evil corporations.

We should switch the systems so the man who murders the man who killed his children get's off and the twit who spills coffee only get's burned by their own stupidity

[bkholdem]

Here are a couple others that believed in jury nullification:

Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794)

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."



- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

-------------

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]

The judge asks the prospective jurors the following question: “Will you bring a verdict of guilty, even if you disagree with the law, if the prosecutor proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[/ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

BTW: The defense is not helpless, you know. They use theatrics and play to emotions, they get to reject jurors they don't think will favor them and they don't bear the burden of proof.

Would you prefer that the judge instruct the jury on the concept of jury nullification? Come on, really, what would YOU do if you were a judge who was presiding over jury selection?

Well, I see I've rambled a bit. I'm sure others will do a better job.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?

The idea behind the justice system is that we try to administer justice by having laws that people know about in advance and therefor can avoid running foul of. The jury is there to prevent a kangaroo court as exist in so many countries. Then there are the appeals to handle what may turn out to be poorly written or unconstitutional laws.

OP wants a more perfect justice system. Instead of looking to the jury (and I wish I had the power because this is something that really bothers me) I'd go after law enforcement personnel who have been found to lie on the stand or fabricate evidence and prosecutors who have withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence. If in my light reading I notice that this is happening time after time it must be rampant in actuality.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?



[/ QUOTE ]

People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty.

People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right?

So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?



[/ QUOTE ]

People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty.

People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right?

So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues.

[CORed]

It takes 12 jurors to get an acquittal or conviction. It only takes one juror to get a hung jury, which results in a mistrial, or, in layman's terms a "do-over".

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?


[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to the alternative of being a slave to a law? Being bound by the words of people who are dead a hundred years? Do you really think chaos is going to ensue because unjust laws are not enforced? We are not talking about letting murderers and rapists go free here, we are essentially talking nonviolent offenses when discussing unjust laws.

[ QUOTE ]

The idea behind the justice system is that we try to administer justice by having laws that people know about in advance and therefor can avoid running foul of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, how many hours would it take for a layperson to familiarize themselves with enough legal jargon to be able to read and interpret the meaning behind laws? There are thousands of laws on the books, the law was meant to benefit people, not to be a hindrance requiring years of study to ensure compliance to the letter.