Overlimit, so I will be brief. Judges don't instruct juries on nullification or permit attorneys to mention it because the judge's job is to enforce the law, not to suggest that it's oK to ignbore the law,w hich is what JN is.
A "defense" is a legally permitted argument that (a) you didn't do it, or (b) you did it but was justified, or (c) there is some procedural reason that the prosecution can't make an argument that did do it (for example the evidence should be suppressed.).
Coerced confessions are inadmissable under due process. Byt the defense has to make the objection that the confession was coerced (or it is waived) and persuade the judge taht thsi is true. The system is not foolproof and many people whose confessions are coerced, some of them guilty, are in prison on that evidence.
I think JN is rarely used because most jurors want to follow the law,a nd would notnullify even if tyhey thought it was an option. There is empirical research taht ordinary citizens follows the law because it's the law.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_651.html
This is the standard study:
Why People Obey the Law', Tom R. Tyler
(
--- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> His father was
> > > the defense attorney and said he was
> > > barred from ever mentioning jury nullification
> as a
> > > possible defense.
> >
> > It's not a defense.
>
> I mean he was not allowed to even mention the jury
> has the option of nullification not that it
> meets the legal definition of a defense, whatever
> that is. Jurors are just supposed to know
> that when the judge tells them they have to follow
> the letter of the law it isn't strictly true.
> They can discard the law altogether if they wish.
> The fact that no one in the court is allowed
> to mention jury nullification seems to me to be more
> about power. The judge has it and
> wants to keep juries from having it. If I was about
> to be convicted of a civil disobedience
> crime and the jury was sympathetic to my cause I
> would consider notifying the jury about JN
> to be in my defense. I imagine defendants benefit
> most from JN not prosecutors so it seems
> rather "defense like" to me.
>
>
> . Great
> > > system, coerced confessions are admissible but
> jury
> > > nullification pamphlets are not.
> >
> > "Admissible" is not the right word for information
> pn
> > JN, which is not evidence. Only evidence is
> > admissible.
> >
> > Coerced confessions are NOT adfmissible, which is
> > presumably why the guy was eventually set free.
>
> He was set free because the killer confessed and the
> governor granted him a pardon. The
> verdict was not overturned because the cops coerced
> the confession. The fact that the real
> killer confessed proved the confession was not
> genuine but not necessarily coerced.
> Again I'm not a lawyer so apparently admissible
> isn't the right word but the fact remains that
> a coerced confession was allowed to be presented. It
> seems like evidence to me. The fact
> also remains that no one was allowed to tell the
> jury about nullification either. Between the
> forced confession and the judge telling the jury
> they have to apply the law when they don't
> this kid had the deck stacked against him and the
> "system" did little to help. The
> impediments were not just the coerced confession. A
> system that operates the way this case
> played out is in need of repair.
>
>
> > > Maybe if juries had more power there would be
> fewer
> > > fuck ups like these.
> > >
> >
> > How so? If they believed the confession, and
> rejected
> > the argument that it was coerced, they would have
> > convicted like they did, not nullified.
> Nullification
> > means acquittal despite the law because you think
> the
> > law is unfair. Since acquittal is final and
> > unappeable, and double jeopardy prevents you from
> > being retried on the same charges, JN is a
> potentially
> > powerful tool, but probably fairly rarely used.
>
> I agree it is rarely used but I suspect that is
> partially because most jurors don't know they
> can do it. Although I don't know why they would
> begin using it in significant amounts of
> cases even if they were instructed concerning it.
> Most laws are not terribly unjust and most
> people going through the criminal justice system are
> guilty as hell. JN is a very democratic
> counter to a judges power however.
> Since I'm not a lawyer I don't know why anyone
> though in this case JN would have
> helped. My friend Bernie Meyers would have spent
> less time in jail if JN was known by jurors
> in some of his cases. I know this because some of
> the jurors have stated they only voted to
> convict because the judge lied to them and told them
> they must apply the law even if they
> don't like it. They said if they had known about JN
> they would have used that tool and not
> convicted him.
> I shouldn't have said "fuck ups like these"
> since I was not certain how JN would have
> helped Johnny but someone though it might. I always
> figured in spite of what I was told his
> father wanted the pamphlets handed out although why
> I don't know. Maybe he wanted a
> mis-trial or maybe he wanted a juror removed for
> spouting off about JN. Maybe he though
> the jury would think Johnny guilty but nullify
> because they felt sorry for him because he was
> retarded. Those seem like weak reasons to me. I'll
> never know for certain.
> I also found out that people have gone to jail
> and been held for "psychiatric evaluation"
> when caught handing out JN panphlets so I guess we
> were luck they were only confiscated.
> That's pretty fucked up too in my opinion.
> Lest you think I hate judges, lawyers and the
> entire judicial system let me assure you I
> don't. While far from an expert what I've seen makes
> me believe the US probably one of if
> not the best justice system in the world. That
> doesn't mean it is perfect however. Judges
> have too much power and there needs to be a greater
> level of access for ordinary people.
> There needs to be oversight of much of the process
> by a board that has less of a vested
> interest in maintaining things the way they
> currently are.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo