[potatolicious]

Except he was guilty, and didn't stand a chance in an actual trial. This part's not even controversial - Aaron was evidently fighting laws that he believed were unjust. The fact that he violated them is not in question.

And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

[glesica]

Not necessarily, and it is controversial. I read the indictment and have followed the case and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that most of the charges were dubious, at best. They seem to have over-charged him, perhaps to extract a plea deal. In other words, the prosecutors may not have even expected to be able to convict him on all counts.

You cited nothing, and your claims are impossible to back with reasonable facts. I suspect you haven't even read about the case (though I see in some of your other comments that you claim to be familiar with the facts).

You want us to be "better", and I agree that anger after the fact is less ideal than anger beforehand. But making ridiculous statements about guilt or innocence is just as bad as condemning the prosecutors for murder.

[Illychnosis]

> A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne

Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.

[arrrg]

That’s not what jury nullification is for – not in the sense you are talking about it.

The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature.

Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility.

I also think it’s illusory to believe that jury nullification is in any kind of way a meaningful escape. It’s a fluke, nothing more.

[dialtone]

You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification?

From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply:

Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained:

The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.

Or, as Patrick Henry put it:

Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.

[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...

[rprasad]

As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system.

Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury.

In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).

[Illychnosis]

> As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system.

Jury nullification is part of law. Design is the part that dictates that you, as a defense attorney, cannot inform juries of their power. The prosecutors certainly won't.

Every American jury has the power* to ignore the law and make their own verdict if they decide that's how justice would be served.

Last year, it became part of New Hampshire law to protect the right of the defense to inform juries of their power:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-...

*edit: changed "right" to "power"

[newbie12]

The don't teach enough constitutional history these days, apparently. Trial by jury and the jury's ability to nullify the prosecution's factually correct case are part of the same, intentional design of the American judicial system.

[mindslight]

So while we're on the topic of jury nullification, could you please enlighten us how this subject is usually handled by defense attorneys for the times it would be advantageous to pursue?

A. Fully advocate for their client by informing the jury of their right to nullify in open court, especially if that nullification would involve disregarding mere administrative law in favor of a no-frills reading of constitutional law.

B. Refrain from informing the jury to avoid risking their relationship with the court or bar, but inform their client of this conflict of interest so that the client may interject partial self-representation if prudent.

C. Avoid informing the client of their rights or this major conflict of interest, but pretend they're still being fully represented.

[btilly]

You have claimed to be a former defense attorney, which anyone can claim, and yet your comment history is full of incorrect statements about the law.

Whether this reflects on your honest or competence I do not know, but I do not trust anything you claim. Former defense attorney or not.

[jacquesm]

It may adequately explain the 'former'.

[btilly]

It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature.

It was not intentionally designed into common law, but when the Constitution specified when trial by jury should be used, it was widely understood that this was the power that juries had. And this was approved of by the founding fathers. For instance Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Therefore jury nullification may be an accidental property of common law, but it is NOT an accidental property of the US system of law.

[jacquesm]

Jury nullification is to all intents and purposes mostly a theoretical thing nowadays.

[dialtone]

According to Clay Conrad, author of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctr...

And according to an article that he wrote in 2003[1]:

Jury nullification occurs in 3-4% of all criminal trials. Jurors cannot be ordered to convict or punished for acquitting. A jury verdict of Not Guilty is final.

[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...

[mindcrime]

A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

Yes they can.[1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[joshstrange]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

> Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty.

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page

[dialtone]

As a matter of fact a jury can do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification although of course this is a controversial topic.

[saraid216]

I actually find it implausible that a jury would have been savvy enough to know, even after courtroom-education by the defense, that nullification was an ideal option.

[rhizome]

The status quo would seem to agree with you, and would like to keep it that way:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_...