According to which law? One of the reasons for a Jury is to be one more check on the system. If laws are overbearing it is not only proper for the Jury not to convict, but it is their duty.
Ann Redington
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Nixon resigned before any Pardon, therefore could not be impeached. Since he was not facing impeachment a Pardon could be granted as they can be given any time after the crime has been committed.
Yup.
FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS
3.10 RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
When the jury is to be involved in a penalty phase, omit the second sentence of paragraph 5.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
Give 7 if applicable.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about [his] [her] testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.
3.10 RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
When the jury is to be involved in a penalty phase, omit the second sentence of paragraph 5.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
Give 7 if applicable.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about [his] [her] testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.
that seems like a pretty sleezy way to get AROUND the Constitution though....no wonder people were really mad at Ford at the time.....
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
LOL. Jury Nullification has been argued for and against for a long time. Writing a law against the action of a Jury is patently against freedoms and checks and balances set up by having a Jury to begin with.
While it is not the position of the modern courts I believe that the dissenting opinion in the case of Sparf v. United States, was the correct principle.
A jury, IMO, is entitled to acquit if they have no sympathy for the government's position regardless of the law.
While a judge may, and should, instruct on the law. He cannot assume votes for the Jury, nor can he refuse to accept a verdict based on a jury vote regardless of whether they voted because of the fact that they had no sympathy for the government's position.
Now, the Right of a Jury, as a buffer between the accused and the state, to reach a verdict despite what may seem clear law must be kept distinct from the court's duty to uhpold the law and to apply it impartially. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court (yes the US Supreme Court) in Horning v. Distroct of Columbia, 41 S.Ct, 53, 43 (1920). In that case Justice Homes had this to say, "[T]he jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts. But the judge always has the right and duty to tell them what the law is upon this or that state of facts . . ."
So, the Judge has a duty to say you must follow the law, but the Jurist has the Right, according to the SCOTUS to simply vote how they wish if they believe the law to be wrong. This directive was recognized later in United States v. Burkhart, 501 F. 2d 993, 996-97.
If a Juror were to say... after the verdict, "I did not think he was technically guilty but... he looked evil so I convicted him". That would be grounds for an appeal.
It is objectionable for an attorney to argue jury nulification.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
No it's not overreaching. It's a check by the people on the power of government. Law passed by whom? Oh, the governement saying that what it does is ok.....
Well, this woman NEVER SAID Libby was not guilty of the crimes he was charged and convicted over.... She said OUTRIGHT that he was GUILTY, and that they were very maticulous reviewing the facts and that Libby was guilty.
ONCE AGAIN, pardoning a person DOES NOT MEAN they were innocent of their crimes.... it means they accept guilt but are asking for a reprieve.
ONCE AGAIN, pardoning a person DOES NOT MEAN they were innocent of their crimes.... it means they accept guilt but are asking for a reprieve.
Right. As I said, per the decision of the SCOTUS it is clear that the officers of the court have a duty to inform them of the law and to say that they should follow it, but a jurist has a duty to vote on the law and the case at the same time. It is part of the whole thing... as I said, a portion of the checks and balances, the last stand for an individual.
I don't know about you, but I take that decision seriously. Were I a jurist for a case where I did not agree with the law I would vote to acquit.
Requesting a Pardon means such a thing. However, reprieve is different than Pardon. A Pardon is the forgiveness from the crime. A person who has received a Pardon no longer has to add that they were convicted of that crime in a background investigation. They have been Pardoned. A reprieve is the same as commuting the sentence. Commuting the sentence does not relieve one of the burden of reporting in a background investigation of the conviction....
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
This paragraph is in error, in particular, the second sentence. LAW <> Justice. Following a bad law would be an injustice. Anyone (Rob maybe) recall the legal prohibitions that made being gay a crime? I guess we the jurors should follow the letter of the law even in these cases...
This paragraph also presumes that the final decision will be wise and legal. What happens when the 'legal' decision is the unwise decision?
All in all, it's just another form of civil disobedience by which the citizenry can create pressure that will bring about a change in bad law.
Last edited:
Yes hiplew and THAT IS MY POINT..... He resigned, so that he would not be impeached, and by not being impeached, president Ford could pardon him for the crimes that he would have been charged with in the public sector.
THIS WAS most certainly SKIRTING AROUND OUR CONSTITUTION, no?
Ford met with Nixon about 15 minutes before his resignation, and it probably was for the reassurance that Ford would pardon him if he resigned....
I know Ford has claimed that was not the case, but I think it was....
Presidents can not pardon EVER, someone that has been impeached according to our constitution....
No. The Constitution allows for the Pardon, it isn't skirting the document by excercising that authority. It made him unpopular. From 75% approval to below 50% over night. But it certainly wasn't going around the document. It is specifically provided for.