I have no words for the anger I feel about this!

I think my statement was clear and I don’t feel like posting a ten page brief on the subject. So in simple terms look at all sides and question everything, you will eventually see both the good and the bad in everything.

 

I see no good in a defense attorney prosecuting a law instead of defending an accused person.

 

Do you understand what all is considered Jury Nulification!

 

Yes. The reason I opposed it is because I understand it.

Laws that need to be reformed or repealed (and there are plenty of them) need to be handled in the legislsture or through ballot initiatives, but not in criminal court when an accused person's liberty is at stake.

 

Look at our legislators, pay attention to decisions some of our judges make. Do you really think if you were in a bad situation you would depend on any of them to do the right thing? Or would you rather be that person who is in jail for 20 years before someone finds a way to prove your innocent or finds a way to prove you were wrongfully prosecuted or what ever the case may be?

 

This isn't about me, it's about the accused being represented by an attorney who is actually defending their client instead of using their client as a pawn in a crusade against some law with which they disagree.

Nobody wants to be wrongfully convicted, which is why the defense attorney needs to focus all of their attention on their client. You're underscoring my point here about competet counsel being vital to ensuring the rights of the accused aren't violated.

Jury nullification only happens in two situations: when the defense attorney has almost no shot at poking holes in the prosecution's case, or when a legal team wants to prosecute a law so they find someone willing to be their pawn and stand trial for violating said law.

 

You may be surprised at what you can find if you do some digging into older books. Jury Nulification is much more than you think. So basically You want to do away with Jury Nulification because you feel an attorney doesn’t know or isn’t capable of doing thier job.

Have you ever been threatened by A judge just before deliberations?
Have you ever been the only one in a room to say not guilty and stand your ground?
Then find out after the fact that the judge refused to consider/admit evidence that would have clearly proved the defendant was Not Guilty?
You may want to really look much deeper into this before trying to zero in on only one factor!

 

Or even moreso, because they have an axe to grind with the law in question.

 

An axe to grind? That’s why there are 12 jurors, you won’t find 12 with an axe to grind. Again your being narrow minded and not looking at the hole picture. All one needs to do to see just how improperly our laws are applied is go look at court records, presidents set by attorneys on the prosecution that could argue just a bit better, or happend to play golf with the judge at the country club on weekends.

 

I thought jury nullification was done by one or more jurors , not the defense attorneys .

when the jurors decide that while a person is technically guilty or violating a law but feel the accused is just being persecuted on purpose by the govt .

kind of like how the January 6th folks were prosecuted and persecuted and are still in jail with no bail , while all the folks who rioted and looted and burned cities , never got arrested at all.

a town near me recently had a case where they arrested and charged and convicted someone with lying to police.

If I was on the jury there is no way I’d vote to convict anyone of lying to the police .
It’s perfectly legal for the police to lie to you, and they do so every day.