Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is

It’s typically asked about. If you know about it and lie, that’s perjury.



It's sometimes asked about whether you'd follow the evidence - people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is.

As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.


> If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise

Nullification needs to be unanimous. You'd get in trouble when pitching nullification to your fellow jurors. (Or at the very least, have a mistrial declared.)

> people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is

If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire. (Hell, just ask innocently about it.)


> Nullification needs to be unanimous.

Nullification absolutely does not need to be unanimous, and it rarely is. All it takes is one juror force a mistrial (and another if it is retried, etc.) Sure, the prosecutor would likely retry, but again, it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial, and the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely.

> If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire.

No shit, so don't mention it.


> it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial

...this isn't nullification. A major point of nullification is a not-guilty verdict by a jury is final. No retrial. No appeal.

> the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely

You think this case wouldn't be re-tried?


of course the case would be retried, but if after the first mistrial there is a widespread partying in the streets, and then the second mistrial the same, and then the third trial starts there is rioting, the way the system currently works they might decide not to try a fourth trial. Of course I don't know if the U.S is there yet.


> I don't know if the U.S is there yet

I do. The educated, well-to-do, urban bubble has convinced itself—again—that this guy is universally adored. Because we’re mistaking—again—the difference between a symbol and the object, a mistake amplified by those who get their world view primarily from Twitter, Reddit, et cetera.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: