I will tell you what the jury orientation movie said (in San Francisco Superior Court), The jury is the last line of defense against injustice.
And that tells me (juxtaposed to Blackstone’s ratio) that jury nullification is a duty if the law seems unfair, if the sentence may be too harsh or too cruel, if the standard of proof is too low, or if the rights of the defendant were unduly violated by law enforcement, the prosecution or the court (say, hacking the defendant’s phone without a specific warrant, or using an IMSI catcher to locate the phone without a signed court order in advance).
Or if there’s already evidence of miscarriage of justice, such as law enforcement officers lying in court in an effort to secure the conviction.
In the US our courts are already corrupt like nano SD cards, and they go through great lengths to choose jurors who will give them a blanket conviction without consideration of the fairness of the law. And yet if jurors are the last line of defense then it means it’s their responsibility to make sure no unreasonable law is upheld, to assure that no-one is sent into the (squalid, abusive) prison industrial complex if the wrongdoing doesn’t warrant such cruelty.
Ideally, yes, convince your fellow jurors. But if you can’t… a mistrial is still good. A new trial means a chance to change strategy with more information. Witnesses forget things, start changing up their stories. And there’s a chance the state will not retry - trials are expensive and time consuming, and a successful prosecution becomes less likely with each mistrial.
If you want to vote not guilty, you can. For whatever reason you choose.
deleted by creator
I will tell you what the jury orientation movie said (in San Francisco Superior Court), The jury is the last line of defense against injustice.
And that tells me (juxtaposed to Blackstone’s ratio) that jury nullification is a duty if the law seems unfair, if the sentence may be too harsh or too cruel, if the standard of proof is too low, or if the rights of the defendant were unduly violated by law enforcement, the prosecution or the court (say, hacking the defendant’s phone without a specific warrant, or using an IMSI catcher to locate the phone without a signed court order in advance).
Or if there’s already evidence of miscarriage of justice, such as law enforcement officers lying in court in an effort to secure the conviction.
In the US our courts are already corrupt like nano SD cards, and they go through great lengths to choose jurors who will give them a blanket conviction without consideration of the fairness of the law. And yet if jurors are the last line of defense then it means it’s their responsibility to make sure no unreasonable law is upheld, to assure that no-one is sent into the (squalid, abusive) prison industrial complex if the wrongdoing doesn’t warrant such cruelty.
You don’t need to convince fellow jurors, you don’t need to convince the judge. Vote your conscience and shut up about the reasons.
deleted by creator
Ideally, yes, convince your fellow jurors. But if you can’t… a mistrial is still good. A new trial means a chance to change strategy with more information. Witnesses forget things, start changing up their stories. And there’s a chance the state will not retry - trials are expensive and time consuming, and a successful prosecution becomes less likely with each mistrial.
If you want to vote not guilty, you can. For whatever reason you choose.
But it gets you out of jury duty
deleted by creator