Does no one find it as offensive to liberty as I that Judges often review a verdict prior to a jury's reading of their verdict? What is the point of a jury if a judge can simply set their finding aside on the grounds that the jury did not apply appropriate law? Depending on the state, Judges can do just that, set aside a jury's verdict when the jury decides to nullify (not apply) an egregious law used against a defendant. Unfortunately jury nullification is a check on governance that seems to be fading.
Frequently judges overturn guilty verdicts:
- Judge overturns Uniloc's record $388M victory over Microsoft
- Judge overturns overturns jury verdict in Parkland
Less frequently, but more frighteningly, judges can overturn findings of innocence where jury nullification is most effective:
Martin's mother filed a lawsuit against Moscowitz alleging malpractice, however the jury in the case held that Martin's injuries did not result from negligent care.
In reviewing the case, Hurd said that he could not understand how a competent and impartial jury could have decided in favor of Moscowitz.
He entered a verdict against the doctor and established a date for a jury to decide the amount of damages to which Martin and his family are entitled.
Accordingly, I agree with Washington Rebel, TL Davis in his post promoting citizen action through jury duty:
I suggest we look at the unconstitutional laws and work as citizens to make sure they cannot be enforced. How? Volunteer for jury duty. I know, no one likes it, but when judges and Supreme Court Justices (like Stephen Breyer) sit atop their perch and cast down snide comments to us, pretending to offer “intelligent, wise counsel” all the while denigrating us simpletons for our presumption to know what the Constitution says, when they believe they are the only ones learned enough to decide that, it is time to take direct action.
Jury Nullification via Wikipedia:
The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict.[citation needed] It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[2] but not the application of that evidence to the law. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.
out
No comments:
Post a Comment