• Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      73
      ·
      6 days ago

      You need to lie to the judge under oath to do it. There simply aren’t consequences, but it is very much illegal.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        75
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • Gregor@gregtech.eu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          That seems pretty unfair to filter out people who know about it, it’s basically filtering knowledgeable people.

        • helloworld55@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          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

          • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            6 days ago

            Are you able to do this?

            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”

            • helloworld55@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              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.

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 days ago

                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

              • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                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

          • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            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.

      • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        You do not have to lie to the judge. There is no lying to the judge. If the jury decides to ignore evidence and nullify, the judge knows exactly why, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

        • helloworld55@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          6 days ago

          Before being selected to be on the jury, the candidates are asked questions after being sworn in, that almost always include language that would disallow ideas of jury nullification.

      • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I was a juror in two different trials and don’t recall ever being asked about my beliefs on jury nullification. It’s been many years though.

        Edit: it seems like I was wrong. Supposedly, jury nullification is not legal in my US state.

        Edit 2: perhaps it’s still not completely settled in my state yet?

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 days ago

          See links in top post. Jury nullification is legal, it is inherently part of how our justice system is structured. However, most judges and prosecutors would much rather prefer you didn’t know your rights, and have outright lied in court about it.

          • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Thanks. I hadn’t read your link, but found articles giving conflicting case history in my state. It was a quick read of those articles though.

      • helloworld55@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Why are people downvoting this? Jury nullification itself isn’t illegal, but committing perjury definitely is, which is what Maalus is pointing out