You, the Juror.

[Born_again]

Recently whilst flicking through an interesting website called disinfo.com I spotted an article amongst a list of "50 Things You’re Not Supposed to Know" called, "Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts". This got me thinking about its applicability here in British Columbia; being that our legal system ultimately has its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215.

Further research led to a Victoria-based law firm's website that has a fairly 'low-brow'(i.e. non-legalese) description of trial process etc.. Sure enough, under the descriptions of the duties of the Jury was the following:

Secrecy

It is a criminal offence for a juror to disclose anything that was said or done by the jury while it was not in open court [s. 649]. This means that no outsider can ever know how the verdict was reached.

Because of this, it is theoretically possible for a jury to ignore the law completely in making its decision, and indeed this is what seems to have happened in one or two high-profile cases in the past. Jurors might refuse to find someone guilty, even though guilt seems obvious, because they disapprove of a law criminalizing certain behaviour, or might find someone guilty even though that verdict is not supported by the evidence and the law, because of outrage at the nature of the offence, or prejudice against the person accused of it.

It should be noted that a jury finding someone not guilty despite what the law says does not change the law by doing so.

It is difficult for the Crown to appeal against an acquittal that flies in the face of the law and common sense, but an appeal against an unreasonable conviction may well be successful, if it is clear from the record of the trial that the jury could not have been acting fairly and impartially in returning a guilty verdict.

My bold emphasis.

With the recent shocking event that occurred in Kelowna and its likelihood of going to trial, I'm left wondering if the Jury or Jurors will be permitted full recourse to exercise their authority in delivering justice. Or, is it as I suspect, a hell of a lot more complicated(legally? politically?) than that?

Thoughts?

[steven lloyd]

Thoughts?

Interesting topic BA. My first inclination would be to suggest we do away with jury trials. Much research has been done into the propensity for juries to make poor decisions regarding innocence or guilt based on their pre-existing prejudices and bias, inability to properly assess burden of proof, placing too much emphasis on testimony that is known to be unreliable (eg, eye-witness testimony), etc. Obviously many people would be incensed by the mere notion I would suggest we remove our right to be “judged by a jury of our peers”, but realistically the only time an offender would normally choose a trial by jury is when he or she knows (or is advised of by their lawyer) the inherent fallibility of a jury might serve in his or her favour. At least a Judge has to produce a decision for judgement outlining how and why he or she came to a decision of guilt (or not) that is available for review and, if necessary, grounds for appeal. (just a thought for discussion - as per your request)

[_______________]

It exists in the states as well, under the term 'Jury Nullification' if you wish to look into it some more. It actually is (or at least is intended to be) an important part of society's legal system, as it is a direct method for people to voice their dissent with unpopular laws. Most lawyers and judges will not tell their juries of this possibility, as they don't want anyone interfering in what they deem to be 'their' courtroom. In fact, stating that you are aware of the process of nullification by jury is an almost guaranteed way to be removed from the jury pool if you're ever requested. The result is that most people on juries believe that they must stick strictly to the letter of the law, which is in fact entirely false - they are actually judge of both the accused and the law itself.

As you mention, the law itself does not change if the jury decides to ignore it - but if juries repeatedly throw out similar cases then they no longer become profitable for the state to pursue. The potential exists for this to be a viable popuar method of affecting small-scale laws.

I really wish everyone was aware of this fact, so that jurors no longer felt the need to stick with laws that they themselves disagree with. I believe being aware this exists is just a small step in regaining some personal freedom, but most people remain ignorant - it's easier for the state to deal with an ignorant public.

One last point: It's important to note the stuff you didn't bold there as well. An acquittal is usually hard to fight, but a false verdict of guilt is more easily overturned. If you're found guilty because the jury doesn't like the colour of your skin or your religion, you will probably be able to overturn the verdict in another court. If you had all the evidence against you of a certain crime that the jury feels is insignificant (personal-use drug charges in much of the US come to mind), then you may be aqcuitted without much fear of further trial. It could be a powerful tool.

Please spread the information that you learn.

[Homeownertoo]

Very good posting. As you probably know, Oliver Wendell Holmes, former chief justice of the US Supreme Court, stated that "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

[steven lloyd]

It exists in the states as well, under the term 'Jury Nullification' if you wish to look into it some more. It actually is (or at least is intended to be) an important part of society's legal system, as it is a direct method for people to voice their dissent with unpopular laws. Most lawyers and judges will not tell their juries of this possibility, as they don't want anyone interfering in what they deem to be 'their' courtroom. In fact, stating that you are aware of the process of nullification by jury is an almost guaranteed way to be removed from the jury pool if you're ever requested. The result is that most people on juries believe that they must stick strictly to the letter of the law, which is in fact entirely false - they are actually judge of both the accused and the law itself.

Thanks for that _______________ . I did google the term 'Jury Nullification' and found it a very interesting concept. I'd heard the term before but never really looked seriously at it before. Still, I can see it being both a good or a bad thing depending on circumstance, jury make-up, etc. But then, our law as written can also be a good or bad thing depending on circumstance or how it is applied, etc. as well. Definitely an interesting topic. Welcome to the board by the way. Hope to hear more from you.

[Queen K]

I too hope to see more posts from ______________. Thanks for that _________________. Do you plan to stick with us?