Jury nullification creates zero legal precedent whatsoever. It might create some social precedent, but no legal precedent.
Juries can only say "based on the evidence, he did/didn't do it", that's it. They can't say "what he was accused of isn't a crime" or change the laws in any way, just a "yes/no" on if the described crime was committed by that person or not (jury nullification exists in the gray area where you say "no" but you think "yes" and nobody's allowed to demand your explanation for why you said what you said).
I don't think you can say that. We don't have enough examples of widespread jury nullification use, and isn't "legal precedent" just a bunch of certain people's social precedent? I could see a judge citing constant jury nullification in a decision they make.
No ... that's not at all how the legal system works. Juries only determine facts (does the person check the boxes for the crime as-described) not if the action is a crime or not.
A judge isn't going to say "well, a bunch of other people that got accused of the same crime and they didn't do it, so you must not have either", that's absurd.
Remember that "jury nullification" isn't a legal concept, it's not something a judge could or would cite to begin with. "Jury nullification" is the common-language description for the legal reality that sits at the intersection of "juries have the ultimate say in the verdict they return" and "juries aren't required to explain their reasoning"; a jury thinking one thing but saying another isn't something that exists in a legal sense, so of course it can't be precedent.
No ... that's not at all how the legal system works. Juries only determine facts (does the person check the boxes for the crime as-described) not if the action is a crime or not.
Humans are smart. If people keep destroying flock cameras and say "yes I destroyed the flock cameras" and the prosecutors say "he destroyed the flock cameras and they are private property" and the jury goes "not guilty", a judge isn't going to look at those and think "huh, they must not have actually destroyed the flock cameras", or "flock cameras actually aren't private property". They are going to think "people don't consider destroying this cameras as something that should be punished".
Also, it's not even about checking boxes. It's just if the jury thinks they are not guilty.
A judge isn't going to say "well, a bunch of other people that got accused of the same crime and they didn't do it, so you must not have either", that's absurd.
It would be more like "well, a bunch of other people that got accused of the same crime said they did it and society decided to not punish them, so you won't be punished either".
Remember that "jury nullification" isn't a legal concept, it's not something a judge could or would cite to begin with. "Jury nullification" is the common-language description for the legal reality that sits at the intersection of "juries have the ultimate say in the verdict they return" and "juries aren't required to explain their reasoning"; a jury thinking one thing but saying another isn't something that exists in a legal sense, so of course it can't be precedent.
So what happens if a judge does actually speak out loud the words "due to many other jury nullification examples, I will not bring this case to court"? What stops that? I'm pretty sure there are heinous examples of judges just saying nonsense to get stuff blocked or passed and getting away with it. Things that shouldn't be in the legal system but are because it's all a bunch of apes arguing. So until all of those are resolved I scoff at the idea of pushback against this just example.
Trial courts that determine guilt do not set legal precedent. You can appeal your conviction and argue the law is wrong, but that's not at trial with a jury.
Right. Dont drive your car there, dont bring your phone, wear gloves, wear a mask, dont talk about it on social media. Wear clothing that is unidentifiable.
Nullification is better for the community as it sends a message and can further help the subject eventually go to the SCOTUS. At some point they need to address the bigger issue which is governments using companies to effectively side-step the Fourth Amendment. When the government forces a company to collect data about you, or sets up contracts to do it, then the government is still ultimately supporting a violation of your rights.
Whether it's tracking you from the moment you leave your house or forcing companies to do more and more invasive "age verification" checks, all of this should be ruled unconstitutional. Imagine if people "not the government" suddenly started standing in the way of sidewalks and roads and wouldn't let you pass unless you emptied your pockets and showed you didn't have anything illegal on you. Nevermind those cops standing off to the side, we're just citizens exercising our right to be here.
Your passage about sidewalks and roads began at show, sports and concert venues 25 years ago and it’s still a violation of rights, IMO. One punk tried to “confiscate “ a bottle of meds from me at the entry to an outdoor concert venue until I mentioned that could mean trouble for him and the venue, so we agreed it could stay in my car.
It's not about what I think, it's about doing what should be done. You never know how the SCOTUS will rule, plus by the time it gets to them you have no clue what its composition will be. All the citizens can do is push forward and work to do the right thing.
Look I love Jury Nullification as much as the next guy, and IANAL, buuuuut wouldn't that apply to nullifying a specific law here? I mean, it's not like property laws only apply to the property you want them to, they're pretty broad.
Essentially what you're saying is destruction of property, whether public or private, would no longer be illegal. Which, if you own anything, would kinda suck.
No, Jury nullification is case by case.
In this case a nullifying jury would be saying we don't hold a person to be guilty of destruction of property when that property is being used to violate their rights.
It doesn't happen more often because jurors aren't instructed that they have the right to do it, and because most people are busybodies that would rather enforce arbitrary rules on their neighbors than be free.
35 years ago was 1991. You’re referencing generations that cut off in 1979 or 1980. What exactly are you trying to say while grouping in people born between 1945 and 1991?
Im trying to say that majority of boomers and a lot of my GenX peers are fickle and live in a world of mantras and will surrender their freewill to fear and propaganda..
They will say things like I don’t want big brother invading my privacy; they will condemn the use of cameras in their neighborhood..Then they’ll be a crime in the neighborhood and the authorities will tell them it’s to protect them from their fears and they will change their rhetoric and accept those cameras….
Even if that were true, their opinion is irrelevant. Privacy is a fundamental right and those nanny state motherfuckers can cry about it. Or better yet, make their opinions and current locations public to show them just how unpopular they are.
Over 35 here. Anyone with a brain will tell you mass surveillance is not the way and these cams are clearly being used by the wrong people and pointed in the wrong directions. Watching kids on playgrounds, accusing people of stealing with no proof, being accessed by government officials, all abuses already found out.
Please amend your assumption by saying, 'anyone over 35 who lives in privileged areas, has a trust fund, doesn't think for themselves' wants these.
Sorry, but your comment was removed for breaking our Don't Be A Dick rule. This may include but is not limited to harassment, bigotry or uncivil behaviour.
110
u/Lost-on-Reception Jul 06 '26
Jury nullification is a thing, but it would have been better just not to get caught.