Jury Duty

I was called for Jury Duty yesterday. I didn't necessarily want to get out of jury duty but when the judge asked point blank, "is there anything that makes you think you might not be able to listen to the facts of the case, and then apply the law to those facts as it is explained to you, to decide guilt or innocence?" I felt the moral obligation to advise him that I was well aware of the constitutional precept of "jury nullification". He immediately interrupted me in mid-sentence, saying "Stop! Stop! Don't say any more! Please go with the bailiff through that side door." I shrugged and followed the bailiff to the anteroom. The bailiff handed me back my cell phone, gave me my parking pass, and told me the canned speech, "thank you for taking your time to participate in your democratic government, we appreciate your service to your fellow citizens of the Commonwealth. You are hereby dismissed and can go now. Have a nice day." Jury nullification is the very heart of the concept of a trial by your peers. It is the constitutionally-mandated obligation of a jury to see that justice is done, regardless of the law or the facts in a case. This is exactly opposite what judges tell you in a courtroom, since if everyone knew that juries had the right to nullify the law in the case they were hearing, there would be some temptation to simply start ignoring law in general. Juries could abuse the power, and we would degenerate into a lawless, uncivil anarchy. Jury nullification doesn't affect the status of the law, it simply is the process whereby a jury decides that the given law, if applied to the case at hand, would result in injustice. The jury is supposed to decide in the favor of justice, not necessarily the law. A citizen is not tried by the law, nor is a citizen tried by a judge, lawyers, or the court. A citizen is tried by the jury of his peers. This is the only real checks and balances on the judiciary short of constitutional amendment. The most blatant case where jury nullification should have been used was the case where a jury listened to the judge, and decided that an idiot who spilled hot coffee on herself should, under the law, be awarded damages calculated in accordance with the law, which amounted to millions. When the jury was asked if that wasn't a little bit absurd, the juror who was being interviewed said, "of course it's absurd, it's ridiculous, we all knew that. But we had no choice, the law was clear, and the facts were clear, and we had to follow the law." Wrong. The jury is supposed to see that justice is done, not to follow the law. Of course, judges will tell you otherwise, but they are doing their duty, too. A judge can legally tell you "there is no such thing as jury nullification under the law" and he will be correct. Jury nullification is not in the law, it is in the constitutional mandate of "trial by jury", which is superior to the law. Don't take my word for it. Look it up in any source you consider reliable. "Jury nullification". My personal opinion (go ahead, flame me, see if I care) is that every American citizen owes it to his fellow citizens to be aware of this. Of course, practically NO one is. And the judges and lawyers plan to keep it that way. As long as no juror knows about it, the judge and lawyers have full control. As long as juries think that they have to follow judges directions, the judges get to essentially decide the case, by serving as the gatekeeper in deciding what evidence the jury hears, what instructions the jury is given, what laws are read to the jury, etc. When a juror knows that jurors are there to mete out justice and is aware that the jury does NOT, regardless of what the judge says, have to restrict themselves to his directions, the judge and the lawyers lose control, and they don't want that. Hence, the judge yesterday exercised his perogative (which he does indeed have) to dismiss me from the jury pool. He doesn't need a reason, he and the lawyers can simply dismiss me at will. Knowing that I knew about jury nullification, he didn't want me on the jury. No judge would. I'm happy, because I didn't have the time to spend three days listening to lawyers argue about two 18-year-olds who got into a fight in a bar at 2 in the morning and one ended up using a steel pipe to try to damage the other one's reproductive capabilities. I mean, what are 18-year-olds doing in a bar at 2 in the morning anyway in a state where the legal drinking age is 21? Of course, I was also about to tell the judge that I was not confident that I was going to receive sufficient information in the courtroom anyway to make an informed decision: in the last five times I actually served on a jury, there was more evidence 'thrown out' than there was presented, and in at least two of the cases we found out later (after the case was over) that there was RELEVANT evidence that had been suppressed that would have definitely allowed us to make a much better decision. Bottom line: I got out of jury duty. If I'd had the time, I don't mind it, I see it as a civic duty. But in this case, I don't have the time. This is the first time I've admitted that I knew about jury nullification. I'll have to remember this next time I'm called and don't have time to serve. If you are thinking about using jury nullification, you'd better do a lot of reading on it, and know something about it, and be able to answer some big-league questions about it if the judge interrogates you on it. It is a powerful tool for democracy. Not that I'm any big fan of democracy... Speaking of democracy, the recent Proposition 8 results (and the GLBT community's response to it) has really surprised me. First off, I'm simply astounded speechless that 52% of Californians had the sense to vote for it. I would've sworn that there weren't anywhere near that many sane people in the state of California. And second, it shows that I have more in common with the gays and lesbians and even the ACLU than I thought: They, like me, apparently don't believe in this nonsense about letting the American people having the right to govern themselves. No, they, like me, recognize that democracy results in bad government (hey, if you don't believe me, just ask Daddy Bill about how good he thinks our government by the people and of the people is! I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you.) And the GLBT and ACLU and me, heck, we definitely all agree that an absolute dictatorship is the only way to go. We need a real dictator, an absolute ruler, someone who will make everyone to do what HE wants, regardless of what the people think or what's best for society. Of course, there's a little disagreement about WHO that absolute dictator should be... the ACLU and GLBT folks think the dictator should be some judge in California, whereas I think it needs to be ME! But hey, that's splitting hairs. The main thing is, neither the GLBT nor the ACLU nor me have any use for letting the people make their own decisions... this idea of letting people make their own laws is so, so... democratic! No, the people need an absolute ruler, a king, a dictator, an emperor, or someone telling them what to do and forcing them do it his way. I'd make a great one, much better than some judge, don't you think? Anyway, enough sarcasm. Go read about jury nullification. It is the only check on unbridled judicial power short of constitutional amendment (which was deliberately made difficult to do) and was meant by the founders of our Constitution to be exercised in good faith, and has been upheld consistently by all courts in the history of our nation, and even the English Common Law system on which our country's jurisprudence system was founded.