Would *you* ignore instructions to a jury?

[MannyGoldstein]

Based on what I've read, it seems like the Zimmerman jurors were instructed by the judge to convict only if they were quite certain that Zimmerman did not fear for his life.

The standard was not something more reasonable, like "did Zimmerman do something stupid/evil that eventually caused Martin's death".

Given those instructions, I think many folks would have to say "yes, the scumbag could have feared for his life, even though the scumbag caused the whole thing by, well, being a scumbag with mayhem on his mind and a gun."

Tough situation for the jurors, I think.

I'm curious as to the thoughts of other DUers: would you override a judge's instructions because you thought the situation was bullshit and a higher justice should be served?

P.S.: I hope that the DOJ imposes real justice on the situation, but... I'm not holding my breath.

[Mr. David]

1. In this case, I would.

And I'll be the lone holdout, and will remain convinced that he needs to be sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The defense teams are jerks. They proved nothing but lying their asses off.



You tell me that the jury chose poorly.

When I see this photo, it brings me to a tear because his justice was denied.

[JDPriestly]

113. If he was on top of Zimmeman, straddling Zimmerman, then, in my view, Zimmerman could not have

folded his arm back to get his pistol and still shot Trayvon Martin right where he shot him in the chest.

There is a post on this fact. Impossible in my view. Lie down on the floor and try it.

I don't think you can bring your elbow across your body to the center of your body to shoot someone straight in the chest. Try it with a friend but without a gun.

[Stardust]

126. Just curious...what do you think the scenario was?

[JDPriestly]

129. I think that Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin with his gun drawn. Trayvon tackled

Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot Trayvon as Trayvon fell on Zimmerman. That would explain why Zimmerman's nose was injured and why Trayvon Martin did not have a lot of moisture on his pants legs. It would explain a lot of things.

And psychologically, it fits with Zimmerman's personality and his obsession with playing policeman.

That Trayvon would have tackled Zimmerman upon seeing a gun would fit with what we know about Trayvon. He was a football player. I think his first reaction upon seeing the gun would have been to tackle Zimmerman. It would have been his only hope. If Zimmerman had not had his gun out, Trayvon would have run.

[Stardust]

141. I agree with your theory, but the hoodie being 4 inches from the bullet

wound rather puzzles me.

[badtoworse]

143. Wrestling on the ground it could have wound up anywhere.

[NoOneMan]

2. Yes

Regardless, I don't think they proved the average person should be in fear of imminent death or harm to excuse the murder

[ileus]

3. As a juror you have the ultimate right to judge the law and defendant.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. Not really. The function of a jury is only to determine issues of fact.

The law and its application is up to the judge. Juries don't get to decide what the law is. In fact, they will be given a general instruction to the effect that they will be required to follow the law; prospective jurors who don't think they can do that will be expected to say so and will be excused. If jurors feel like they can ignore any law they don't like there's no point in even having jury trials.

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. Once you're on the jury, it's up to you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. If you can't or won't follow the law you shouldn't be on that jury.

It isn't fair to either party.

[JDPriestly]

114. Right. Here, however, the jury, considering the length of the trial and the extent of the evidence,

especially the technical evidence, did not deliberate long enough to have considered the evidence properly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

131. I know you're talking about the Zimmerman case, but...

...sometimes the law is an ass and needs to be nullified by willing jurors.

It used to be a federal crime to be a fugitive slave. Are you saying you would hold that law in such high esteem that you would convict the fugitive slave rather than vote to acquit despite the facts?

You could, I suppose, take the high road and say you couldn't be a fair juror, but then that slave still gets convicted. At least you would have taken the high road, though.

Similarly, if I were ever called as a juror on a drug case, I would happily lie through my teeth about my willingness to only follow the facts and the law, and then vote to acquit. That subverts the law, you say? Well, I say, that's a law that needs to be subverted.

[Honeycombe8]

56. This is true. However, juries sometimes nullify a verdict to reach justice. The prosecution or

defense can appeal, in that case, if a verdict is not supported by the evidence.

The law sometimes results in unfairness, an injustice. Usually sending someone to prison who shouldn't go. For example, an old ex-con who got caught holding something against his parole rules. That would send him back to prison for what would essentially be the rest of his life. I saw a documentary where the jury nullified and came back with a not guilty verdict, even though he was clearly guilty.

He was of low intelligence, very poor, it was easy to believe someone had taken advantage of him & asked him to hold something (it was an unloaded gun in his residence). It was very sad. This man had had a horrible life, had not been violent, but had quite a criminal record. The jury nullified, and it was the right decision.

The prosecution knew the jury nullified but did not appeal (if it had that right). Everyone seemed to agree that that was the best decision, in that case.

The law sometimes has unintended consequences.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. The reason the prosecution didn't appeal was because they couldn't.

The state can't appeal from an acquittal.

[Honeycombe8]

61. I wondered about that. But they made statements in the documentary.

They were okay with the verdict. They had done their duty. No one wanted the old guy to go to prison. He was of really low intelligence, some guy had taken advantage of him by hiding his gun in this fella's residence. There were no bullets anywhere. The old guy had never been violent, and it ws hard to believe he'd start at his age. He lived in a single room, had almost nothing, wasn't an evil guy. Yeah, he'd been in prison. But he'd served his time.

It was the right decision. It would've been a travesty of justice, as they say, for the old guy to be sent back to prison for something he really didn't do. He didn't even really understand his parole violation rules. His low intelligence was admitted in evidence..somehow.

[lame54]

62. Lies are not facts...

you can choose to not be swayed by a defendants BS story

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. It's up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

Maybe they didn't think they were lies. Or maybe they committed nullification and disregarded the law and the facts to arrive at acquittal. I think it's interesting that the posters in this thread who think jury nullification is such a great thing might not have considered that fact that it could have happened here...

[lame54]

71. Then they're suckers

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. Maybe so. But that's the risk you run with any jury trial.

Jury trials are often crapshoots.

[spin]

108. Technically the defendants story may not be entirely accurate but that doesn't matter. ...

The prosecution has to prove that he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

It's not a perfect system but its far better than trial by the media and popular opinion. Of course if the defendant is obviously lying, I take that into consideration.

[hfojvt]

68. but the jury, like the voter

gets to say what the law SHOULD say. They do not have to follow the letter, they can follow the intent. As I understand history, juries before the civil war would nullify slavery laws. The law says that person is property and must be returned to his owner, but norther juries would say "screw that, slavery is wrong regardless of what the law says. The law is wrong."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. What if this jury "nullified" the law to acquit Zimmerman?

My point is that when you decide nullification is OK to get results you want, you have to be ready for other juries to do it, with results you might not want.

[hfojvt]

111. but you do the same thing with democracy

people get to vote and that means they might vote the way I do NOT want them to. But a jury needs to be unanimous. So if they ALL agree, that is not like a 5-4 vote.

[Bonobo]

4. In order to deliver justice, I would "interpret broadly". nt

[Avalux]

5. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Yes. n/t

[pacalo]

6. I wouldn't have to ignore those instructions because I don't believe Zimbo feared for his life.

I don't think he has any remorse for what he did.

I would not put aside my common sense in any murder trial.

[arcane1]

10. Bingo. He had a gun AND he knew the police were on their way.

[On the Road]

52. That is Really the Best Argument

It's difficult to see how an unarmed teenager would have been a danger to Zimmerman's life with the police on the way.

[truebluegreen]

7. With our alleged justice system? You bet I would.

[ctaylors6]

11. As sad as it is,

I think you may have just summed up the case the best I've seen or heard anywhere.

To answer your question, I'd like to think I would follow the instructions. Even in the face of cases like this, I think i'd like to think that it's better for a guilty person to go free than to make laws such that innocent people are more readily convicted. I would submit that there are many self-defense cases in which defendants did something lacking in judgment (but not illegal) and ended up in a position in which they had to defend themselves. (That's not a comment what happened in this case, just a general comment.)

That being said, I really think the immunity portion of the SYG law needs to be evaluated seriously.

[DirkGently]

12. No laws say "Did so and so do something stupid ... therefore murder."

Think about that for a second. Imagine for a heartbeat that all the assumptions that Zimm is a bad guy (he is) and therefore set out to kill (no one was able to prove that) are not in play.

How many murder convictions do you want for someone that "did something stupid" where eventually there is a killing?

If a non-Zimmerman person, say, flipped off another person, do they then lose the claim of self defense if the flippee starts murdering them? Must they suffer whatever a person they insulted or shoved or annoyed wants to lay down, even IF they actually do reasonably fear being killed?

All of this nattering is based on a great big leap of logic. These particular facts, and the evidence available, got an ugly result.

But change the facts, and a different law would convict an innocent person.

I think the GUN was the out-of-balance issue here. Someone packing heat cannot afford to get into ANY violent entanglement. One cannot simply scrap or tussle or fight, with a gun, without the gun coming into play.

I can see a different standard set for concealed carry. One where they have to be more clear of having caused the situation then is usually the case. But the law itself is structured the way it is for a reason.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I believe stupid->death is involuntary manslaughter

At least in some states, but I could be wrong.

[DirkGently]

21. Okay, but FL has that.

Our manslaughter statute is pretty normal too.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Culpable negligence. I agree the facts may have supported that in this case. The jury apparently did not.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. "Without lawful justification"

I believe that under FL law, believing that you're going to be killed is lawful justification.

[DirkGently]

50. I suspect that would be pretty universal.

The problem with all of this is basically that we have to have self-defense, and we don't have a good answer for what happens when someone in every way causes a situation that never need have happened, but is then able to claim that at the very end, he was in "fear for his life."

Trying to fiddle with that is tricky. If someone we liked was in a situation like Zimmerman's, except we didn't blame him for whatever it was that started the physical confrontation, we want them to be able to claim self defense.

[DonCoquixote]

78. culpable negligence

as in "George, you were told NOT to interfere"
"george, you were told not to be armed on neighborhood watch."

and if he was afraid for his life, why did he CONFRONT and pick a fight?

[DirkGently]

84. Yes. The duty of reasonable care.

I think getting out the car with a gun to attempt to "investigate" someone is culpable. It's what part of the right-to-carry contingent wants to be able to do, and I think the worst actual fallout from this case is that they may now think they can.

I'd like to see another standard for either culpable negligence or self-defense generally when someone initiate a confrontation while armed. It shouldn't be so easily set aside as "then they feared for their lives."

If you go in with a gun, you should be more responsible for ending the situation before violence ensues.

[JDPriestly]

119. That is what should have applied.

[DirkGently]

120. Lawyers I have spoken to agree.

Now I'm really getting out of this topic for a while. Feelings are raw and people don't want a law lesson (I have learned). They want to know how a kid can be walking down the street minding his own business and be shot and no one goes to jail.

[JDPriestly]

117. Do you think that Zimmerman could have pulled his gun out of his holster and shot

Trayvon Martin straight in the chest? I don't think so. Not if Trayvon was straddling him, on top of him and hitting his face.

[DirkGently]

122. Last one, because it's you. I don't know.

I don't know what the physical configuration was. I read a ballistics guy said the physical evidence was consistent with a shot going upward. I think it would be possible in some situations to pull a gun while being straddled, yes. Frankly that's my best speculation as to what did happen. If even one witness had said they saw two people standing apart and then heard a shot, I think we'd have a different case, and likely a different result.

[Raine]

13. Yes, I believe in juror nullification.

[rexcat]

14. I have sat on a Grand Jury...

after that experience I would definitely ignore a judge's instructions if I sat on a local, county, state of federal jury, including a Grand Jury. Our judicial system is fucked up.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. What state do you live in? nt

[rexcat]

124. SW Ohio

and the reddest part of the state.

On edit: Judges don't have really anything to say as far as Grand Jury goes. It is the county, state or federal prosecutor who runs the show. If I sat on another Grand Jury I would ask a lot more questions to witnesses, especially the police. One case we got I voted against indictment on principal because the police officer's story did not feel right. I can't explain it any better than that but my visceral reaction to his testimony was negative. It did not ring true. The person was guilty as all hell and was indicted but the way the police conducted themselves was not professional or what I thought constitutional. That was an interesting discussion with the members of the Grand Jury that day.

[laundry_queen]

107. I've been on a jury as well

although that wasn't in the US. In this particular case I'd have ignored the judge's instructions because they were wrong. I know what the definition of reasonable person is and what reasonable doubt is. I would've gone by what I learned in law class instead. But that's just me.

[ZombieHorde]

16. I support jury nullification. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. What if that's how Zimmerman got acquitted?

Maybe his jury believed in nullification, too.

[ZombieHorde]

97. The end result is the same. nt

[jmg257]

17. Doesn't matter if Zimmerman feared for his life, mattered if that

Fear was reasonable...

I don't think it was.

[grasswire]

19. it is the right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

That precious principle stands between us and tyranny.

It is called Jury Nullification.

The right of the juror to judge the LAW as well as the facts of the case.

I may or may not choose to exercise that right in this or any other case. But it is my right, as an American.

www.fija.org. Fully Informed Jury Association.

[PoliticAverse]

28. 'Jury Nullification' is about refusing to convict someone for a law you think is wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. Like what happened to O.J. Simpson?

[PoliticAverse]

45. I don't think they were nullifying the law against murder. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. No, it is not. A jury's function is only to decide the facts.

A jury is instructed that they must follow the law. Failure of a jury to follow a court's instructions is unfair to both parties and can also be considered juror misconduct, which can result in ordering a new trial. It is not up to jurors to decide which laws they like and which ones they don't. A juror who can't or won't follow the judge's instructions should not be on that jury.

[grasswire]

63. you are absolutely wrong

And I encourage you to inform yourself. You could start at www.fija.org.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. I was a trial lawyer for 17 years and I taught constitutional law.

I think I'm pretty well informed.

[grasswire]

65. Have you never heard of jury nullification?

That's pretty frightening, if so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. I am quite familiar with it. I just don't think it's a good idea.

BTW, fija.org is a Libertarian outfit. I don't think much of Libertarians, either.

Also, FIJA is quite popular with Second Amendment gun lovers, advocating jury nullification when crimes are committed with guns. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/misc/JuryNullificationAndThe2ndAmendment.pdf

George Zimmerman's case fits right into the kind of nullification FIJA advocates.

Not sure I want to be in bed with that crowd.

[grasswire]

79. "I don't think it's a good idea" is quite different from...

saying it's not allowed or doesn't exist or a juror must not use that device (which stands between the people and tyranny).

I don't give a flying fig WHO it's popular with. It is available to any citizen. I realize it can make some anxious -- some who don't really trust the people with democracy.

I also know that many in the "profession" seek to conceal the principle of nullification from the public, going so far as to arrest anyone who passes out an FIJA pamphlet outside a courtroom. Hardly American, eh?

[COLGATE4]

85. Jury nullification doesn't "stand between

the people and tyranny". That's a fatuous remark. Jury nullifacation makes a mockery of our trial by jury system. If you are not prepared to act as a juror in the capacity that the law requires jurors to act you have no business ever being on a jury. Your perception that your personal judgment of how the law should work is superior to the entire legal framework we have established since English law is arrogant and fundamentally unfair to the defendant. No one is seeking to "conceal" the idea of nullification - merely making it clear that 1) it's illegal 2) it's dishonest and 3) it's unfair to anyone in the trial process.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

86. What if the Zimmerman jury used nullification to acquit him

because, like the libertarians at FIJA, they don't think people who commit crimes with guns should be convicted? Jury nullification is not necessary to protect the citizens from "tyranny." Individual jurors deciding on their own what the law should be sounds a lot more dangerous. What if a jury in a civil rights case is made up of white supremacists who don't think civil rights laws should be enforced? What if a jury is made up of Christian evangelicals who don't think laws against prayers in school, or protecting a woman's reproductive rights, should be enforced?

That's not democracy.

[COLGATE4]

82. From one trial lawer to another -

arguing legal issues with non-lawyers is like trying to teach a pig to sing - it doesn't get you anywhere and you just annoy the pig. But, for what it's worth, you are absolutely correct.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

88. Yeah, maybe I should give up and go to bed.

I feel like I'm just farting in a whirlwind. But thanks for your support.

[COLGATE4]

93. I hear you. Some days it's mind numbing. nt

[anomiep]

136. Don't give up

Some people may get something out of it. Even if its not the person you are directly commenting to.

I am not a lawyer, trial or otherwise - but I do try to understand the law as best I can.

[otohara]

20. Zimmerman Ignored The Cops

he wasn't facing the death penalty - so yes, fuck him.

[forestpath]

22. In a heartbeat.

[Just Saying]

23. I believe the jury is supposed to decide of a

reasonable person would believe they were in danger of death or grave injury not if Zimmerman thought it.

I think the jury's problem was trying to get their minds around a law that makes the prosecutors try to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.

[PoliticAverse]

35. From the instructions given to the jury...

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the
circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman
need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been
so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed
that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman
must have actually believed that the danger was real.

You can see the complete instructions they were given here:

Webbrowser version:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

Direct link to .pdf version:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf )

[RedCappedBandit]

37. "reasonably cautious and prudent"

No way in hell would I classify GZ as reasonably cautious and prudent. If I were a juror, I'd say guilty.

[Skittles]

77. CORRECT

his story was ridiculous

[Bolo Boffin]

41. "a reasonably cautious and prudent person" wouldn't have been in Zimmerman's position

Since I find Zimmerman to be an untrustworthy witness as to the events of that night, the circumstances can't be established enough to determine what "a reasonably cautious and prudent person" might have done in them. So you're left with the physical evidence.

Manslaughter at the bare minimum.

[BlueJazz]

24. In this case, Yes.

[Nye Bevan]

25. If I was a juror, I would be prepared to do nullification to free someone,

but I would never do nullification to send someone to prison.

I would be quite prepared to nullify in something like a medical marijuana case.

[femmedem]

34. That's a really interesting and moral take

and one I will remember if I'm called for jury duty.

[Skittles]

26. I am certain someone did fear for his life

problem is, it was NOT Zimmerman

[dflprincess]

29. I would have thought that if Zimmerman feared for his life

he would not have ignored the 911 operator and gotten out of his vehicle and stalked his victim.

[G_j]

30. yes

and it's a jurors' right (and i would say duty) to do so.

[hedgehog]

31. "‘The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however,

to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force,’’ the instruction read.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. But only if they were sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

said reasonable person would feel they had to use deadly force.

That being said, this is somewhat different than what's in my OP, but it may not be functionally much different.

[badtoworse]

32. A jury ignoring instructions is a jury making up it's own laws.

That would be very bad and I can't support it, even here.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. So you would have voted to acquit the Klan members

who murdered the 3 civil rights workers in 1964 in Mississippi? After all, those jurors were just following instructions.

[Punkingal]

39. Yes, in this case and maybe others, too...

I would have hung that jury if I were on it. I will probably never be picked as a juror.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Like the O.J. Simpson jury did? It's called jury nullification

and it means the jury is ignoring the law because they don't like the outcome, and no, I would not do it. Otherwise why have trials? The solution is to get the law changed.

[arely staircase]

44. I think a guilty manslaughter decision could have been reached within the court's instructions nt

[Honeycombe8]

59. Yes, it could have been. nt

[frazzled]

99. Agreed; no need for nullification to convict

at least of manslaughter.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. In a drug case, yes. I would vote "not guilty." Period.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. What if Zimmerman's jury ignored some parts of the judge's instructions

in order to arrive at an acquittal? Or is jury nullification OK only if it results in a verdict we agree with? If you accept the principle that a jury can ignore the law whenever it doesn't like the results, there will be plenty of verdicts that we will hate. For all we know this was one of them. That sword cuts in both directions.

[HooptieWagon]

53. I believe the law cites whether a REASONABLE person would be afriad for their life.

A reasonable person would not racially profile a black youth walking home with an iced tea and candy. A reasonable person wouldn't stalk that youth when instructed not to by the dispatcher. And a reasonable person wouldn't try to apprehend that youth by themself, knowing cops were on the way in minutes. George Zimmerman is not a reasonable person. Hes an idiot. If he was afraid, it was his own actions that caused it.

[Atman]

54. Zim had the gun. He did not identify himself.

Period.

If he had said "I'm with Neighborhood Watch. Do you live here?" even with his hand on his weapon, crisis averted. Even if he had to pull out his gun and yell "STAND STILL MOTHERFUCKER! The police are on their way!" it is still highly unlikely Martin would have run while staring down the barrel of a gun.

I simply don't believe the older, bigger guy with the loaded gun actually feared for his life. He had a boner to finally use his precious against one of those fucking punks who always get away, and he took the opportunity.

[Honeycombe8]

55. I would nullify so as NOT to send someone to prison. I wouldn't so as to send someone to prison.nt

[NaturalHigh]

106. That's what I was thinking.

I still believe that it's better for 100 guilty persons to walk than for one innocent person to go to prison.

[JVS]

135. Yeah, diverging from the letter of the law in order to inflict punishment certainly..

seems like hopping down the path to a kangaroo court.

[RobertEarl]

57. He knew he would win

That's what sticks with me.

He knew that in the end he would walk away because he was armed and dangerous and had the final solution. Why the jurors could not see that must be laid at the hands of the prosecution and the incompetent police.

Facts which feed the idea that the law was not blind. It saw a dead black kid and said "So what".

Which is another crime in and of itself.

And no, I would not listen to the Judge's instructions much. But if I had, it would be that he had less reasons to fear than the kid did. The kid is dead, not Zimmerman. It is obvious who was the most dangerous and who was most to be feared.

[davidpdx]

67. I haven't heard the instructions as they were given

I'd think the entire jury would have to agree to ignore them to be effective.

[orleans]

69. you never know until you're actually in the situation. but i would hope i would do the right thing.

and in this case it would NOT be calling this man "not guilty"

[Quixote1818]

73. I think he lied enough to convict himself

I would have suggested that I simply did not believe anything he said.

[Rowdyboy]

75. I'm neither a lawyer nor a serious student of the law but jury nullification is a serious idea....

I think an individual on a jury can do whatever he or she thinks proper-using his or her understanding of the law.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. No. The jury's function is to determine the facts and apply the law

as instructed by the court. If juries can decide on their own what the law should be there would be no point in having a legislature that makes laws or judges that interpret them. It would be completely impossible for the legal system, as flawed as it is, to function at all, or for anybody to get a fair trial.

[Rowdyboy]

89. I fully agree that your statement is accurate

But juries are as varied as are people...they decide oddly sometimes, with little advance notice. And the law eventually becomes the law....

[grasswire]

81. it is our last defense against tyranny

despite efforts of "the system" to conceal the principle from the American people

[COLGATE4]

91. You can keep repeating it until

you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it so.

[grasswire]

94. let me guess -- you're a constitutional lawyer too? nt

[COLGATE4]

96. I am a trial lawyer. I also taught some Con

Law classes years ago.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

95. I am wondering where all this libertarian claptrap is coming from.

When do we start hearing about the black helicopters?

[COLGATE4]

98. Actually, my theory is that it's probably

the Illuminati, or maybe the Bilderberg group.

[markiv]

83. no, the scope of the juror is the law via the judge's instructions nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. ...

[rrneck]

92. In this case probably not.

But I'm not against jury nullification in more obvious cases of injustice.

[TorchTheWitch]

100. considering he lied about what happened

than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life. Considering that I don't believe he got the injuries they way he claimed to have gotten them than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life. Considering that it wouldn't have been physically possible for him or Martin to have gotten the gun from where he claimed it was while he was supposedly getting his insignificant injuries than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life.

Simple. No juror would have had to ignore the jury instructions. And they can't write jury instructions that make it impossible or even nearly so to find the defendant guilty.

Were those even the jury instructions though? They should have said only if they were quite certain that Zimmerman was not REASONABLY in fear of his life. Anyone can be in fear of their life for any number of silly reasons that aren't reasonable, like I'm so paranoid at the sight of just a single drop of blood that I feared for my life so I killed him isn't a valid reason to find someone not guilty. Being that paranoid about seeing blood isn't reasonable, therefore it isn't reasonable to kill someone because you saw a single drop of blood come out of you. His fear would have had to have been a reasonable fear.

Seeing as how his injuries were insignificant and that he lied about how he got them than I'm not seeing how anyone could believe he had a reasonable fear of his life.

I'd really like to see those jury instructions. I don't believe they actually went with the law.

[spin]

101. No. I have been on a jury in the past and I followed the instructions. ...

If I disagree with our laws, I work to change them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

105. How's that working for ya? n/t

[spin]

109. In recent years it doesn't seem to make much difference who we elect. ...

This has always been the case during my lifetime but today I feel the politicians get away with more blatant lies than they did in the past.

[Egalitarian Thug]

115. Watch the 1933 film Duck Soup. Floriduh is as it has always been.

Your state passed and maintains laws specifically written to allow thieves and con men to evade the laws of other states.

It's kind of like the people that come here and are outraged that our entire economy is founded on gambling, hookers, and blow, and that the cops and prosecutors are very selective in how and upon whom the laws are enforced. If you don't want to live in that kind of environment, you should move someplace else.

[spin]

125. I happen to like the climate in Florida. I grew up in the snow belt. ...

Our state government is far from perfect but other states also have serious problems.

According to the Corruption Risk Scorecard Florida has a rank of #18 in the survey with the best state being New Jersey (believe it or not).

You can review the survey at http://www.stateintegrity.org/your_state

[Egalitarian Thug]

134. But the clouds are so much prettier in the west.

[spin]

137. It's a little too hot and dry for me out west. (n/t)

[Rex]

102. But they didn't ignore anything, they were simply confused

and I believe decided to acquit since they were confused by the judges orders and the defenses instructions. I figured there was easily enough there for a manslaughter conviction. People here say the prosecution was horrible. What is the DOJ going to charge him with?

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. Jury nullification? In a heartbeat. n/t

[MADem]

104. It's called jury nullification, it's not illegal, and it happens often enough. nt

[JVS]

123. Convicting people by ignoring the law is not jury nullification.

[MADem]

128. Ignoring the letter of the law when reaching a verdict is jury nullification.

At least in USA:

Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial British America. Similar to British law, in the United States jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

[JVS]

133. That's wrong. Webster's has the following.

The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jury%20nullification

A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam War (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment -- for example, in "three strikes" cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/jury-nullification-term.html


Even in your article there is nothing about using JN to convict, other than talk of conviction of lesser offenses in place of the offenses charged.

[MADem]

140. Nullification refers to ignoring the law. The person might be innocent, but be an asshole.

Perhaps the defendant "got away with it" on a technicality, the jury knows this, and wants to make him pay.

The term is most often used when juries ignore the law to set someone free...but not always.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2899/whats-the-story-on-jury-nullification

Jury nullification generally refers to a jury’s decision to acquit a defendant even though the jurors believe the accused to be factually guilty of the crime. This decision can arise from a desire for leniency or sympathy with the accused or from distaste for the particular law being enforced. Theoretically, the term could be applied to the reverse process, wherein jurors convict an unsympathetic defendant even though they are (or should be) convinced of his innocence.

When black people were railroaded in the Jim Crow south by all white juries on trumped up or no evidence, that was jury nullification. The jury "nullified" the rule of law, and went their own way, for their own purposes. This law blog discusses that aspect of nullification:

he ancient Egyptians understood this principle and that is why they elevated Justice to the status of a god.

They called her Ma’at and paid homage to her in all aspects of their lives and dealings with each other.

She is the basis for what we call the Golden Rule.

When you think about it, Ma’at or the desire for justice is why we have juries decide cases, and if juries are to manifest Ma’at in their decisions, they must have the power to exercise jury nullification.

Unfortunately, jury nullification, like everything in this physical dimension of space-time, including our ideas and ourselves, comes with a shadow. That shadow manifests as something evil when an all White jury wrongfully convicts an innocent Black defendant, despite reasonable doubt. The prosecution benefits in that situation.

But a jury that acquits a sick defendant undergoing chemotherapy who is technically guilty of possessing and using marijuana for medical purposes manifests Ma’at and strikes a blow for justice. I see nothing wrong with that.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/01/03/maat-justice-the-golden-rule-and-jury-nullification/

Webster's definition applies but it is not entirely controlling. What is "nullified" is the rule of law, not a conviction.

[JDPriestly]

110. No. The standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did not stay out very long considering the length of the trial and the amount of evidence presented. I think they made a poorly thought out, emotional decision.

I did not expect a conviction or an acquittal. You can never tell with a jury. But again, I do not think the jury did its job because in the couple of days they took, there is no way they could have reviewed the evidence especially the forensic evidence and really understood it.

Zimmerman lied, but the jury did not take the time to piece the truth together. They just took Zimmerman's story as the truth.

[cynatnite]

118. Reasonable is a very big word in a courtroom...

On the last jury I sat on, the prosecution spent a lot of time talking about "reasonable doubt" and what it meant. It made a huge difference in how we deliberated.

I don't know if emotion played a role here or not, but I do think that this jury did not fully understand what reasonable doubt meant or how to apply it.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. yes I would.

[cynatnite]

116. No...

The judge instructs the jury and as a juror, you are obligated to follow those instructions.

If you are not able to, then you should be excused or asked to be excused. I've seen that happen. During a jury selection a potential juror asked to be excused because she felt that possession of marijuana should not be illegal. She knew she could not be a juror and was excused.

I've served on more than one jury and we are obligated to follow the law and the judge interprets that law. It's up to us to determine if a law was broken.

Having said that, I think I would have hung this jury because I couldn't have walked out with anything less than manslaughter. I do think the jury made a mistake and got hung up on doubts rather than facts.

[JVS]

121. I would possibly engage in jury nullification for acquittal (particularly on drug charges)

I would never ignore jury instructions in order to harm a defendant. It is neither my job to select the charges a defendant should face nor is it my job to rewrite the laws that apply. Divergence from the instructions is a bad thing because it robs the law of its precision and turns it into mere suggestions.

If I were in a jury and someone started suggesting divergence from the instructions in order to put a person away, I would refuse to cooperate with them and hang that jury completely.

[elleng]

127. Try Reasonable Doubt.

[Niceguy1]

130. not to send a perso. away

I think that is morally wrong. To set someone free? Yes.

[ornotna]

132. Wouldn't have to ignore instructions to convict in my opinion.

GZ was armed and went after Trayvon. Seems to me he wasn't in fear for his life at all.

[Ash_F]

139. OP, have you ever tussled with someone 40 pounds lighter than you?

It is not reasonable to fear for your life in such a match-up. No need to 'ignore' the law.

This was a White jury with an irrational prejudice towards Black people. No need to over think it.

[cali]

144. of course it can be. It all depends on the skills and what kind of shape

both parties are in. And this isn't weighing in on the jury, the trial or anything but your claim. I've seen fights where the smaller party had the upper hand on the larger one.

[Justitia]

142. I've done it - ignored an instructed verdict & hung the jury

It was a felony case with a visiting judge who instructed the jury to find a defendant "not guilty" on a technicality.

We said, fuck that, denied the instructed verdict, hung the jury & gave the prosecution the chance to retry again without screwing up the preview of a video tape.

I ran into the Asst DA later at a restaurant & he said he remembered me because we were the talk of the courthouse.

Most juries are stupid sheep, trust me, I live in Harris County, Texas.

[Ruby the Liberal]

145. Juries are allowed to disregard what they do not find believable/credible

It was not believable to me that Zippy thought his life was in danger, given that he was carrying a loaded weapon and knew the police were moments away.

I also am too much of an asshole to worry about "fitting in with the group". Yes - I would look them in the eye and say "sorry - standing MY ground here" - go tell the judge we failed to return a verdict, and then would sleep like a baby that night.