Flint Journal – August 8, 2008:
Some folks looking for protection may be shocked to find they are putting themselves on the wrong side of the law.
The Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office recently issued criminal charges against two women caught with stun guns.
In the first case, an 18-year-old Flint woman found herself in trouble after she flagged down the police to tell them a man walked off with her cellphone. When officers asked why he left so fast, he told them it was because she had a stun gun and he didn’t want to get shocked.
In a separate incident, police stopped a car for a burned out taillight and arrested the 19-year-old Flushing driver when they found a stun gun in her purse.
In both cases, the women ended up with a felony charge of stun gun possession — a crime that carries four years in prison.
One might want to invest in some good old-fashioned pepper spray
RE: MR. Fusion RE: #4, MaTa,
((((There is even a law on the books for “swearing in the presence of women and children” that is actually occasionally still enforced!
Just because a law is on the books does not mean it may be enforced. The specific one you refer to was overturned, I believe in 2000 or so. The same as your later “co-habitation” law. That was overturned by a Supreme Court decision back in the ’60s. So while these laws may still “be on the books”, they are unenforcible.))))
No, the profanity law WAS recently enforced!!! (and I said that the “lascivious cohabitation” law wasn’t – they should just remove such stupid laws then, especially as they don’t enforce it, because it makes gov’t look bloated and out of touch)
HOWEVER, it does appear that the law was fairly recently overturned (well after I had already fled Michigan’s nonsense. . lol) :
“The Associated Press 04.02.02 – TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River.
He was fined $75 and ordered to work four days in a child-care program, but the sentence was put on hold while the case was appealed.
Enacted in 1897 and slightly reworded in 1931, the law says anyone using “indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” ”
Also, the northern lower peninsula and the upper peninsula of Michigan are quite beautiful, I must say, and Lake Superior is my favorite of the Great Lakes. The U.P. just needs to be its own state, though, as it is SO not like shi77y southern Michigan.
The point you argue is not whether there is a “right” to Jury Nullification, but whether a jury MAY find a defendant not-guilty. In short, Jury Nullification is telling the jurors that they may dismiss the defendant if they don’t like the law or its application. Because there is no “right” to it, Jury Nullification becomes a fiction. Juries are still free to use their judgment, morals, personal convictions, etc to decide whether to convict someone.
Try reading the last sentence in paragraph 87 again, especially the last clause.
*
Although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed.
United States v. Avery , 6th Cir.(1983) Appeal to SC denied
So a jury in the Sixth Circuit is expected to obey their instructions that limits, if not outright denies, Jury Nullification.
*
I hate arguing the law with non-lawyers, you guys simply do not get it.
Geeze, that is condescending. I guess Michigan doesn’t need an Appeal Court to clarify the law, or a even Judge to determine the law. Everyone always agrees what the law is. Is Michigan also expected to do away with their Supreme Court too? No need, after all, the lawyers “get it” and never disagree.
#35–Fusion==why are you arguing with ma ta?
Jury nullification. You post as if you understand it at #31, and then get it wrong at #35.
Its simple. “The Law” says the jury must follow the judge’s instructions to follow the law==weight the facts, apply the law.
Jury nullification happens when for a variety of reasons the jury does not follow the law. The jury cannot be told about jury nullification because it is a violation of the jury’s charge. Its why lawyers are often not put on juries in criminal cases–they tend to know about the POWER juries have to nullify.
Interestingly, it goes both ways. All white juries convicting the black defendant “because he is black” is also jury nullification and the conviction will be overturned if it is shown to have happened.
It is condescending to assume the bright people at Dvorak won’t take the time to understand the difference between a right and a power. Ignore it and make your case.
#36, bobbo,
I’m confused here by your comments. I have been consistent all along that “Jury Nullification” is NOT a right and therefore is a fiction.
Your example of Jim Crow justice is not the definition of Jury Nullification. A person suffering from AIDs or going through chemotherapy and is caught using marijuana would be a closer match. In DOUGHERTY , the case SN referred to, the defense wanted to apply Jury Nullification in an attempt to politicize the charge and trial. The defendants had no right to destroy private property in their quest to exert their free speech rights. Therefore, the Appeal Court ruled the defendants had no “right” to use a political defense for a criminal charge. That still does not mean the jury could not have acquitted them for whatever reason.
In my example the defendant could easily tell the jury why they use marijuana and the problems they have when not using it. That comes down to a necessity defense and the jury may acquit on those grounds and still have followed the Judges instructions. The jury does not have the power to toss out the law as was originally claimed in #16 and even if they acquit, the law remains on the books.
Going back to your Jim Crow example, the conviction will only be reversed if the appeal can demonstrate that there was an error made by the Court / Judge; the prosecution / police injured the defense; or there was not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. The error must be severe enough to have influenced the trial or defense. In other words, the accused did not get a fair trial. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if he is not guilty to succeed on Appeal.
#37–Fusion==as best as I can tell, you only slightly misunderstand what nullification is. You state it correctly in part, and wrongly in part.
Mostly, it may be that definitional distinction between a right and a power.
I have no right to hit you in the nose, but I can do it, I do have the power/ability to punch you. Because I don’t have the right to punch you, if I do, you can sue me for damages.
So, a jury does not have the right to nullify the law by not following the law but rather following whatever else they might substitute. They do have the power to do so however. Probably when a few stubborn types on a jury refuse to follow the law or to look at all the evidence, you get a hung jury or a finding of “not guilty” and so forth.
The definition I use is broader than the more narrow one used in the wiki article, and you are right that as in most things, the discussion/understanding is greatly influenced by how one defines the term==something we haven’t done?
Take your first sentence: ““Jury Nullification” is NOT a right and therefore is a fiction. Well, you are half right==it is not a right, but it is also not a fiction. Very hard for instance to get a drug conviction for mere possession of small amounts of Maurijuana in Northern California because juries there simply won’t convict==so jury nullification is at work there and cops just tell you to put your reefer away or roust you for some other bogus charge.
The defense of necessity is part of the law and a legitimate defense==it has nothing to do with jury nullification.
Juries nullify the law whenever they don’t follow it, but yes, the laws still stay on the books.
From what you post, I can’t tell what you actually are disagreeing about. I’ll respond again if you want to be as specific as possible?
Bobbo,
nul·li·fy
tr.v. nul·li·fied, nul·li·fy·ing, nul·li·fies
1. To make null; invalidate.
2. To counteract the force or effectiveness of.
nullify
Verb
[-fies, -fying, -fied]
1. to make (something) ineffective
2. to make (something) legally void [Latin nullus of no account + facere to make]
nullification n
A jury can not “nullify” a law. Their only power (in a criminal case) is to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty. If you go back to post #16, JimD claimed that juries can “nullify” a law so it can’t be used. The truth is they can’t.
Juries can and do acquit for many reasons, they do not need to explain themselves in doing so. But that prerogative does not give a defendant any right to tell them to ignore the Judges directions. Remember, just because you decide the law is an ass, does not automatically mean others will agree with you.
The more egregious the law or situation, the more sympathetic one may expect the jury to be. The same holds true if the jury feels the law is just.
*
Previously you asked why I was arguing with MaTa. I’m not. I am simply pointing out a very incorrect fact. As you are aware, several posters here at DU don’t care about how factual they are. They can and do invent anything in their effort to troll. I won’t allow bullshit I know to be wrong to go unchallenged.
With MaTa, she made a claim that was ridiculous and false. I corrected her statement. JimD did the same thing. I corrected him also.
<>
That’s because the sentence makes no sense. Ice cream is not a right. Does that mean it is a fiction?
I prefer to use the term “lawful prerogative.” It is something jurors may lawfully do should they choose to. Only the Defendant has rights in a criminal case. He does not have a right to have a jury nullify — it is up to the jurors, in the exercise of their discretion, to determine whether the equities of the case require nullification as a remedy. The accused cannot complain because they did not choose to do so.
ALL the courts have held, dicta aside, is that the Defendant has no right to a jury nullification instruction. Everything stating that jurors are “required’ to follow the law, or that jurors violate the law by nullifying, yada yada yada, is dicta, and is of no legal importance.
#40, CSConrad
Ice cream is not a right. Does that mean it is a fiction?
Yes, if it is represented as something else.
fic·tion
n.
1.
a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3.
a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.
In the discourse above, Jury Nullification has been presented as both, a right and a function. It is neither. That makes Jury Nullification a fiction.
If I lived in a state that would send someone to jail for four years for having a non-lethal self defense weapon like a stun gun I would move. That’s totally ridiculous. I used to live in New York State which has similar ridiculous laws and I moved away from that backwards state a few years ago. Anyone interested in a non-lethal self defense weapon like a stun gun, taser or pepper spray should visit http://www.ExtremeDefenseShop.com . Please don’t if you live in Michigan though. You don’t want to go to jail.
In response to post #7, I agree that the State of Michigan is a good place to be from. I, too, am leaving this nightmare as soon as possible, one way or the other.
“Mr. Fusion” in #20 said Jury Nullification doesn’t appear in the constitution (and therefore, I presume he’s arguing, it “doesn’t exist”). What a dummy. Neither does it state or appear anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights anything about having the right to use the bathroom, but would you argue such “doesn’t exist”? The 9th Amendment basically says that anything not expressly addressed elsewhere in the constitution (prohibited or allowed) is therefore allowed. That means that the constitution is the entire sum and scope of prohibited or allowed powers, and if you can’t find reference to an action in the constitution, it therefore must be permitted by the people. For example, nowhere in the constitution does it say whether I can or can’t scratch my nuts….therefore, I can do it. That’s the beauty of the 9th amendment–it’s the “catch all” that lets you do (theoretically) anything, basically. That’s why, theoretically (per original intent) people really do have the right not to be stopped by the federal government from smoking pot or nullifying bad laws.