re: OT advice on being an educated juror.

I hate ******s.

Also...if they were arrested, they're guilty.

Or

frick the police...they're all dirty.

Wear a tie if you are male, act like you know it all, and say guilty......a lot.

Shouldn't being a college graduate get you struck by the Defense in Baton Rouge?

They want the dumbest shits they can find.

When I was called, at least a third of them were no shows. AFAIK there weren't any consequences.

quote:

---

Any OT lawyers want to school me on what I should know about things like jury nullification?

---

"Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that true statements could be libelous. However Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases.

In recent times, the courts have tried to erode the nullification powers of juries. Particular impetus for this was given by the fact that all-white juries in the southern states refused to convict whites of crimes against blacks. As a result there is a practice of judges to incorrectly instruct the jury that the judge determines the law, and that the jury is limited to determining the facts. Such an instruction defeats the purpose of the jury, which is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the state. Judges or expert witnesses can determine the facts better than juries can. The purpose of the jury is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the law.

In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo highlighted the difference between justice and law. 'The jury's responsibility is to deliver justice, not to uphold the law.'"

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. "

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

So how much doubt is “reasonable”?

quote:

---

All you have to say is that you don’t think you can judge the actions of others.

---

Take it a step further and get religious about it. Tell them it says in the Bible, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", and that God will take care of the judgement when the defendant's life is done.

Not legal. The judge has no authority over you if not selected for jury duty.