As per .world worldnews mod, no discussing naughty stuff like jury nullification.
While this post is blowing up, here’s the book referenced by the shooter:
Delay Deny Defend - Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It
By request: Full, uncensored video of the shooting. (Fucking obviously NSFW)
Wrong. They try to filter out people who know about jury nullification, but the act itself is not illegal, as you do not have to have the knowledge to accidentally do it anyway.
That seems pretty unfair to filter out people who know about it, it’s basically filtering knowledgeable people.
There’s no basically, that’s literally what it is
“They” being the state.
Just to be clear, one of the standard questions to ask a potential jury is “you must be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at the trial and in the context of the law as I will give it to you in my instructions, disregarding any other ideas, notions, or beliefs about the law. Are you able to do this?”
If you know about jury nullification, with the intent of using it, then you need to lie under oath to get past this question.
The question was taken from the New Mexico US courts
Ahead of time, I could answer truthfully that I am able. I don’t have to say “but when the time comes, I may choose not to for any reason”
I mean that may be “the truth”, but it is purposely not “the whole truth”. Which is a violation of the oath. The only way jury nullification is allowed is if a jury independently decides not to convict, because then jury is unbiased in deciding that the law is wrong or shouldn’t apply.
Again, if you are selected for jury duty, and you already have decided you will ignore the law to avoid convicting the criminal, then there is no way you can make it past the selection without lying to the court.
I think then talks about jury nullification may be changed in such a way that no legal matter is discussed, but a jury is still inclined to act such that nullification happens, and that will be in accordance to the phrasing of the oath
Check the links in the main post. Your example question and many other variations of it are explicitly addressed there.
Afaik, in a court of law, the questions they ask matter. If it is a poorly worded question, it is the fault of the one interrogating. Don’t answer your own version of their questions
Check the links in the main post. Your example question and many other variations of it are explicitly addressed there.
But in short, you answer truthfully, but stick to the letter of your answer and not what the judge thinks. There’s nothing illegal about it.