Be a nullifying juror if they outlaw abortion

[bluestateguy]

A jury of 12 men and women still must vote to convict someone of a violation of a law. If that does not happen, the law is unenforceable. So let's say your state does bar abortion. Eventually a case will come before a court of a doctor or woman who will be charged with the "crime" of having an illegal abortion. If just one person on that jury refuses to convict, regardless of the facts or the evidence, then the defendant goes free. If this happens enough, then anti-abortion laws will become unenforceable, and clinics will begin opening up again.

The power of jury nullification is your democratic right as a citizen.

[niyad]

1. that only works if pro-choicers are actually selected for juries that

involve abortion rights.
one does, after all, have to survive the jury selection process if one is called.

[Richard D]

2. Jury selection . . .

. . . would weed us out. A jury does not decide on the fairness or correctness of the law, only whether the defendant broke the law or not.

[Extend a Hand]

3. I would make every effort

to make sure I got on that jury.

[liberalnurse]

6. I'd just lie.....

Lead them to believe I was anti-choice in what ever fashion the jury question was posed. Worst things have happened.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Ain't easy to be the 12th...

juror to hold out for a hung jury and a mistrial-- and that's what you're talking about here. If one does manage to hold out, then a new trial could be ordered, and everyone goes through it all again with a new jury. All twelve have to agree to not guilty for the defendant to walk.

Jury nullification is a little trickier. The jury is historically within its right to say that the person is guilty but the law is wrong. This goes back to English common law, and just how it could be done probably varies from state to state. Judges and prosecutors don't like this one bit, and even defense attorneys won't bring it up for fear of reprisals. It has rarely been done.

[lindisfarne]

5. Jury nullification has an interesting history. Jurors historically were

informed of this option, but when it was used by juries over and over again in the late 1800s as a way to refuse to convict strikers (which was then illegal - but a juror who believe the law was unjust could refuse to convict the defendant), jurors stopped being informed of the right to nullify.

If you do act under your right to nullify, do so without explaining why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The 1895 decision of Sparf v. U.S. held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice in United States courtrooms in which juries are instructed to find guilt or innocence according to the letter of the law.

In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law <6>. However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict