Jury Nullification anyone? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

By late
"Jury nullification is generally considered rare. But we think that nullification, construed broadly, is more common than usually assumed. For any acquittal (or hung jury), it is plausible that some jurors cast their vote because they viewed the law or the particular prosecution as illegitimate. This story is especially plausible if the operative law is unpopular. Indeed, criminal lawyers and judges, behave as if nullification is common, treating jury selection—and its screens for juror bias—as perhaps the most important stage of the trial process.

Consider Texas’s “trigger” law on abortions—a near total ban—set to automatically go into effect 30 days after Roe is overturned. What is the likelihood of drawing a juror who would consider nullification in a prosecution under this statute? In many, many possible cases, the likelihood seems high. Nearly 93% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Thus, in 93% of cases—nearly all potential prosecutions—over 40% of potential jurors, on average, will view the prosecution as unjust, no matter the other facts. And an additional 22%—for a total of over 60%—might view it as such, depending on the circumstances. The odds of nullification rise commensurately as the prosecution becomes more extreme. In cases involving rape, serious fetal disability, or serious maternal health risk (though falling short of death or major disability), almost all jurors will view conviction as either certainly or potentially unjust.

Prosecutors will take note. This is critical. It is not the rate of actual nullifications that matters, but rather the equilibrium effects that the probability of nullification generates. Actual nullification may happen rarely precisely because prosecutors foresee its possibility and adjust their behavior accordingly. Given the above polling, how likely are prosecutors to ask a jury to convict a doctor for performing a 6th-week abortion of a fetus with a deadly chromosomal disorder? If prosecutors apprehend the likelihood of nullification, we think it unlikely. What about prosecuting a 14th week abortion to allow the mother treatment for a serious, but likely non-fatal, cancer discovered during the course of the pregnancy? Here again, if prosecutors understand the possibility of nullification, we think it would be unlikely. Prosecutions are more likely regarding abortions performed for family planning reasons. Though even here, early-term cases may be hard to win."
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2022/05/nullif ... .html#more

There is a moment in The Expanse where a biologist is confessing his crime to interrogators, and they don't understand a word he is saying. He had sent the formula for a super soybean plant that could save the lives of millions. But where he was, was at war with Earth. It ends when a battle starts over their heads.

But what the biologist was saying was profound, resistance is inevitable. The harsher the new order is, the more it will be resisted. He was talking about plants and cells, but the point is, that's part of life.

I know, the Death Cult will say they are resisting. But what they are resisting is civilisation itself. Kinda brain dead, but what can you expect..

Thank you for the post. The concept of jurors placing their belief of the correctness of the law above deciding a case on the basis of the existing law is well worth consideration.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n remember the Big 5.
Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Nice to see you, too. I've had a lot of life, deat[…]

That's a lie! I'm not going to insult you by be[…]

oops Again, I accept the implicit admission[…]

Well, you're entitled your opinion, and I could[…]