Judge Nullification - Lori Drew Case
current mood: annoyed
Everybody I've read so far is focusing on whether or not the conviction on the charges was right or not, but that isn't the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the headlines flash up on the screen.
The Judge over-ruled the Jury?!?
The reason this bothers me is rather complex, so stick with me a moment.
In a trial, everybody has their part to play. The judge explains the law, the lawyers present the evidence and the rebuttal of their opponents evidence, the jury listens to all this and decides how justice is best served. Note that last part, because if you ask judge what the jury's duty is, he's gonna give you a different answer, especially these days. The judge is most likely going to tell you that your job is to review the evidence presented and then tell him if you believe the law, as he's explained it to you, was broken by the defendant. If so, he'll then decide the punishment.
Right about now you should go look up Jury Nullification, Wikipedia has a good entry about it.
Given my recent jury duty stint, and my understanding that the idea of Jury Nullification is one judges would just as soon you didn't know about, my reaction to the judge over-ruling the jury was, "You damned hypocrite!"
Now either Jury Nullification is a valid part of our Justice System (we don't have Lady Legal on our courthouses, we have Lady Justice), or it isn't. If it is, then the judge should include information about it in his instructions to the jury, the way we did earlier in this countries history. If it isn't valid, then when the jury returns it's verdict, the judge gets to set the punishment, but that's it, no sitting back and telling the jury they came to the wrong decision as far as he's concerned and he's decided to ignore them.
A defendant is entitled to a swift and speed trial by a jury of their peers, the goal being to see that justice is served.
If the jury can't overrule the law in the interest of justice, neither can the judge!





