Skunkduster posted:Isn't jury nullification the whole point of having a jury? If it was just a matter of determining if somebody broke a law, you could just have a "jury" of three lawyers that understand the law far better than a panel of jurors and go with a simple majority vote. No pretty much the exact opposite. Juries are intended to uphold the factual and consistent application of the law. Nullification bypasses and erodes the rule of law by creating inconsistent exceptions. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jun 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
E-flat posted:No? I’ve never heard of it. I was trying to think of reasons why you might have to kill another person to survive. I originally thought of ‘you have to hit the switch to change trolley tracks from you to them’ but I figured the law would find the person who tied you two to the tracks in the first place culpable for that. I misremembered some of the facts but here's what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Isn't jury nullification the whole point of having a jury? If it was just a matter of determining if somebody broke a law, you could just have a "jury" of three lawyers that understand the law far better than a panel of jurors and go with a simple majority vote. Jurors are there to determine the facts of what happened, not how the law should apply to the facts. That's why they get instructions like "if you find that guy x did y then you must find him guilty". The idea is just that the best way we have to sort fact from fiction is to present both sides to the jury and have them decide who's lying and who's telling the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 11:45
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:I'm drunk with friends and we need some law thread arbitration. The question is "are you owed lost wages if some idiot rear-ends your car and totals it?" A group of us think that the court would say you aren't cause missing work due to a lost vehicle wouldn't be considered damages. The other group thinks lost wages counts as damages and would be owed. How wrong are we all? Depends on the state and the auto insurance coverage. If you have PIP, typically lost wages are included in that coverage. If you’re suing someone else’s insurance, lost wages may or may not be available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 12:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No pretty much the exact opposite. Juries are intended to uphold the factual and consistent application of the law. Nullification bypasses and erodes the rule of law by creating inconsistent exceptions. I think a certain amount of considering the morality of applying the law will happen anyway, and I can't say it's wrong to always. To give an extreme example for illustration, if the bigoted psychos in the US pass an "it's illegal to be trans" law I would consider it my moral duty to tank any sort of guilty verdict if I was on a jury judging someone for that, no matter how much the facts say they're "guilty". Anything less is effectively offering "I was following orders" as an excuse for my participation in evil, even if those orders come from a judge instead of a military officer. I realize the legal system must not encourage nullification which is why every legal professional argues against the idea quite strongly in my experience, and God knows it should be VERY rarely applied, but I think it's a little silly to pretend the idea is always bad no possible argument otherwise. I can't see any real justification for a jury system that does not, in the end, boil down to "we will not trust the judicial system alone to decide whether something rises to the level of punishment", so almost by definition the jury system kind of has to hold that system up to judgement itself in the cases where it fails its own function. Hell, even the laws themselves are frequently written for the jury to apply judgement to their applicability as is; I doubt you could get a machinelike application of the "reasonable person" standard anywhere. As for inconsistent exceptions to law enforcement, you certainly don't need a jury to inconsistently apply the law (God knows all those juries that ruled for whites/against blacks were generally not the only racists in the courtroom putting their fingers on the scales) and if a law is inconsistently applied, isn't that just as likely to be a problem with the law as the people trying to use it? Anyway, sorry for the tl:dr, I just find it a little annoying how often it feels like nullification is always dismissed as wrong and not intended when it feels like a core function of a jury is to allow disagreement with the government's position, which pretty much implicitly suggests the idea. It's just that you can't really put "it's OK to break the rules" in the rulebook when it's on a very vague sometimes basis  . And at least well written well enforced laws shouldn't ever need nullification anyway, nullification should only be for when all the other protections against injustice break down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
The flip coin to that isquote:if the loony libs in the US pass an "it's illegal for a white to murder a black" law I would consider it my moral duty to tank any sort of guilty verdict if I was on a jury judging someone for that, no matter how much the facts say they're "guilty". which is basically how the South operated up until far too recently. Anyway, law and government is a set of threats backed by a promise of violence so do whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
It was always my understanding that it isn't allowed so much as not possible to scan a juror's brain for their reasoning beyond what they say during deliberations, so nothing stops you from voting NG because you think the law sucks but saying it was because you didn't find x witness credible or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 06:56
|
|
|
quote:Anyway, sorry for the tl:dr, I just find it a little annoying how often it feels like nullification is always dismissed as wrong and not intended when it feels like a core function of a jury is to allow disagreement with the government's position, which pretty much implicitly suggests the idea jury resolve factual issues, judges resolve legal issues. there is no fundamental position or right to jury nullification in a jury trial. thus, they will ask you up front if you can enforce the law even if you dont agree with it, and if you say you honestly cant, they will bump you from the jury likely. you can lie and continue on, but then you're already tainting the jury pool by being there under false representations. it is wrong and unintended. same as always finding black people guilty. they both happen. you can probably assume who benefits from jury nullification and who doesn't (hint, its the same as the rest of the legal system)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:they dont get to decide "well i think bill should be able to sell crack to jill so i will vote not guilty." They factually do get to decide that, even if they're not legally supposed to. The whole jury system is "we will put these people in a room, their deliberation process will be confidential and not subject to inspection by the judge or anyone else, and whatever they decide on goes." The end result being that they can basically decide any way they like for any reason or no reason at all... assuming they all agree. The jury instructions are a completely non-enforceable suggestion. Things like jury nullification existing are an unintentional but basically unavoidable consequence of the rules being the way they are. Good citizens arguably have a moral duty to break unjust or stupid laws, so jury nullification can be an ethical act of civil disobedience. (Although "break the law" is still not good legal advice even when it's good moral advice.) RPATDO_LAMD fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jun 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Would be interesting to hear the inside stories of juries that are hung based on one person wanting nullification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
In my interpretation of jury nullification, if I were to serve on a jury in a trial where I felt that the law was morally unjust (or at least, the application of the law in a particular case perhaps as an unintended consequence) then I would eagerly grasp onto whatever flimsy argument the defense presents for acquittal in a finding of fact. Whether or not I'd make it through voir dire is another issue I suppose. I mean, I have no problem upholding the law with regard to--say--someone having CP on their phone, but if it turned out "someone" was a 15 year old with pics their 15 year old SO, I'm not going to participate in the process of ruining said person's life because the law didn't account for such an absurd situation and the tough-on-crime prosecutor couldn't exercise any discretion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Would be interesting to hear the inside stories of juries that are hung based on one person wanting nullification. I think radiolab just did an episode on jury nullification included a juror charged with a crime for nullifying. It was that or freakonomics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
E-flat posted:No? I’ve never heard of it. I was trying to think of reasons why you might have to kill another person to survive. I originally thought of ‘you have to hit the switch to change trolley tracks from you to them’ but I figured the law would find the person who tied you two to the tracks in the first place culpable for that. What you're describing is called a necessity defence. It can fly for some crimes, but generally not murder. There was an old UK case where three shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a fourth to survive; the two who actively participated in killing him were convicted, although in the end they got pretty light sentences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:What you're describing is called a necessity defence. It can fly for some crimes, but generally not murder. There was an old UK case where three shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a fourth to survive; the two who actively participated in killing him were convicted, although in the end they got pretty light sentences. I thought it was two who ate a third. I believe they had their sentences commuted to 6 months despite having been given the death sentence. The reason it was commuted was that drawing lots to determine who would be eaten was common enough that it was referred to as “The custom of the sea” up until we had steam ships. While they hadn’t drawn lots the man they killed was apparently dying anyway after drinking seawater or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
I mostly just lurk but saw this posted to the Schadenfreude thread in GBS and thought of you folks. M-m-monster Treelaw! https://twitter.com/SamAsIAm/status/1673371813043408904?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
Frank Frank posted:I mostly just lurk but saw this posted to the Schadenfreude thread in GBS and thought of you folks. I love treelaw. Just got the result back from the police, I helped our arborist file a complaint on a company that cut down one medium-size tree and about 5 shrub-sized ones, kicker was that the trees are all red-listed as endangered and on public land. Our public land. We replant ourselves, to make sure it's fixed properly, and the company manager got a 6 600 USD fine and a criminal conviction. Wish the fine was higher, but still has to sting a little. The conviction is worse, franky, because that means they are nixed from public procurement for a good while. Really don't like assholes who think they can just cut down trees on public land whenever they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:They factually do get to decide that, even if they're not legally supposed to. uh no they don't get to "factually" decide that. They get to go "the facts say this but i disagree with the law so i will vote not guilty regardless" but that is not a factual determination as to anything. its choosing to take a moral stand that is expressly against the rules and intention of a jury. it is not a factual determination from the jury-i.e., was bill in possession of 10g of cocaine when he was arrested, yes or no? and again, jury nullification largely benefits entrenched power. also, is the requirement that you tell the truth during jury selection a "unjust or stupid laws" that you are obligated to ignore/violate? Do you have a moral duty to lie about your willingness to find someone guilty of a crime you don't believe should be a crime, in order to get on the jury and then tank it? is it a morally correct choice to get bill off on a possession charge, at the expense of thousands of dollars in wasted judicial resources and others people time, when they will probably just retry it or give him a better plea deal the second time around if the jury just hangs? anyways, you can have whatever hot takes you want on the jury system. anyone who has been to law school has heard them all. I am explaining legal concepts as they work in the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
When I said factually perhaps I should have said it's a de facto power as opposed to a de jure one. All those words you wrote are about how juries ought not to do it and not about how the court system effectively prevents them from doing it. Because yes, it is not written into any law or constitution, but juries in real life can and will do this. It is, as a matter of fact, a thing that juries can do. When you say "they don't get to decide this", what you really mean is "they shouldn't get to decide this, as a matter of law". But in practice they get to anyways. RPATDO_LAMD fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Lol, juries. What the gently caress are you people even doing, figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
Jury Nullification is something that idealistic minded people pounce on when they discover the concept and then you have to explain that no normalising it does not take you to legalised weed, it takes you to in legalised lynching. Oh and white juries deciding the prosecution facts are good enough every single time there's a black defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:When I said factually perhaps I should have said it's a de facto power as opposed to a de jure one. again, i am explaining legal concepts. saying its "de facto" and not "de jure" just means you fail to understand that i am talking about legal concepts "not about how the court system effectively prevents them from doing it." - again, as i said, they will ask you if you can apply the law even if you don't agree with the law. you can tell the truth or lie. There is no "effective" method to determine whether a juror is lying. i don't really care what juries can or will do in real life unless my client is on trial
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Law thread, question from a lawyer with no subject matter knowledge. A friend of a friend made the unfortunate decision to lend her then-boyfriend's company several hundred thousand dollars. The loan is secured. Unsurprisingly, the company and the relationship imploded. No bankruptcy yet but it is in the cards. The company [allegedly] may be considering selling the collateral and using the assets to make customers whole. Company incorporated in Delaware. My instinct is that, if things to come to a head and she wants to litigate, she should reach out to the Delaware bar's referral service. But more knowledgeable thread lawyers, is that the best way to find practitioners who handle this sort of mid-six-figure loan/corporate dispute?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Jury Nullification is something that idealistic minded people pounce on when they discover the concept and then you have to explain that no normalising it does not take you to legalised weed, it takes you to in legalised lynching. Oh and white juries deciding the prosecution facts are good enough every single time there's a black defendant. Or neutering fugitive slave laws. Ultimately jury nullification empowers the general populace directly at a cost to the formal legal establishment, which of course means people in a formal legal role all hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Or neutering fugitive slave laws. Lol. Yeah man, protectionism why all those lawyers are saying "uh you really don't want mob rule and the overriding of laws on the whim of random people chosen for jury duty". The general population is famously very left wing and in favour of equal protection for all, and nullification forever will only end in good things. I am very smrt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Lol. Yeah man, protectionism why all those lawyers are saying "uh you really don't want mob rule and the overriding of laws on the whim of random people chosen for jury duty". The general population is famously very left wing and in favour of equal protection for all, and nullification forever will only end in good things. I am very smrt. Your honor, objection, this derail sucks and has just gone on too long
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
counteroffer, I will neutrally apply a law I don't like, if in exchange you pay me legal minimum wage instead of a flat daily fee that is less than my gas cost to go
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Javid posted:counteroffer, I will neutrally apply a law I don't like, if in exchange you pay me legal minimum wage instead of a flat daily fee that is less than my gas cost to go I've only made it to a jury pool once but I feel like I really drove home the stupidity of that one. The bailiff was very insistent that we needed to park in the county parking garage or face towing. I tried to be polite about it but finally I let her know that I didn't need to pay my entirely daily wage to park in their garage. I parked over at one of my favorite breweries since parking was free there and I could grab a pint on the way home. Two or three beers was cheaper than their parking garage. It turns out that it was a civil case where a drunk driver drove on the wrong side of the road and killed an oncoming driver. After his estates' lawyer heard that exchange I don't think he wanted me on the jury. Pretty sure that they chose to remove me from the jury pool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Or neutering fugitive slave laws. Soothing Vapors posted:Hahaha, what the f*ck (excuse my language)? Are the cases not in English? Were they not written with words contained in a dictionary? What "TRAINING" does he need to understand them, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
I have a question about pain and suffering. I was t-boned by a guy who blew through a 4-way stop while running from the scene of another accident. I had pain and complications (had to use a cane) for about 6 months after. He admits to being 100% responsible. My medical bills were covered, as was my deductible and a measly 10 days for a rental car. How do I know what is even a reasonable offer for pain? It's never going to be enough, especially since I'm in serious debt from having to buy a new car but like, if I get a lawyer they're just going to take half so I'd rather just accept a reasonable offer and be done with it. I'm in LA if it makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Flora Finching posted:I have a question about pain and suffering. I was t-boned by a guy who blew through a 4-way stop while running from the scene of another accident. I had pain and complications (had to use a cane) for about 6 months after. He admits to being 100% responsible. My medical bills were covered, as was my deductible and a measly 10 days for a rental car. How do I know what is even a reasonable offer for pain? It's never going to be enough, especially since I'm in serious debt from having to buy a new car but like, if I get a lawyer they're just going to take half so I'd rather just accept a reasonable offer and be done with it. I'm in LA if it makes a difference. Gosh, that sounds like something for which you should probably retain a lawyer!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
Flora Finching posted:I have a question about pain and suffering. I was t-boned by a guy who blew through a 4-way stop while running from the scene of another accident. I had pain and complications (had to use a cane) for about 6 months after. He admits to being 100% responsible. My medical bills were covered, as was my deductible and a measly 10 days for a rental car. How do I know what is even a reasonable offer for pain? It's never going to be enough, especially since I'm in serious debt from having to buy a new car but like, if I get a lawyer they're just going to take half so I'd rather just accept a reasonable offer and be done with it. I'm in LA if it makes a difference. The lawyer will take a chunk, true, but they'll also get you a lot more so in the end you will very possibly get more. Please please please talk to a lawyer about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 07:14
|
|
|
Flora Finching posted:I have a question about pain and suffering. I was t-boned by a guy who blew through a 4-way stop while running from the scene of another accident. I had pain and complications (had to use a cane) for about 6 months after. He admits to being 100% responsible. My medical bills were covered, as was my deductible and a measly 10 days for a rental car. How do I know what is even a reasonable offer for pain? It's never going to be enough, especially since I'm in serious debt from having to buy a new car but like, if I get a lawyer they're just going to take half so I'd rather just accept a reasonable offer and be done with it. I'm in LA if it makes a difference. You can shop this around to personal injury lawyers who work on contingency, without going under contract with them, and the going rate in most places (IDK if yours differs) is 1/3, not half. It'll give you a better read on what's typical to charge and whether you have viable claims. If you had the negotiating skills and leverage as a layperson to get money out of an individual with insurance, you'd have the money by now. In reality, it's the implicit threat of a lawsuit (that can only be wielded by someone who can bring that suit) that gets you any money for personal injury. There are limitations to how long after the incident you can bring claims and you're probably approaching them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 07:47
|
|
|
Flora Finching posted:I have a question about pain and suffering. I was t-boned by a guy who blew through a 4-way stop while running from the scene of another accident. I had pain and complications (had to use a cane) for about 6 months after. He admits to being 100% responsible. My medical bills were covered, as was my deductible and a measly 10 days for a rental car. How do I know what is even a reasonable offer for pain? It's never going to be enough, especially since I'm in serious debt from having to buy a new car but like, if I get a lawyer they're just going to take half so I'd rather just accept a reasonable offer and be done with it. I'm in LA if it makes a difference. This was a while ago, but my partner was run over on her bike by a car. She got a pretty basic offer from the other persons insurance. I encouraged her to get an attorney and it was 100% worth all the money he 'took'. He helped us get coverage for everything that wasn't covered in the first offer, and helped engage our own insurance which I hadn't even considered. Absolutely the best thing out of that lovely situation was working with that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
Welp, guess I'm shopping for a lawyer. Thanks for the advice all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Flora Finching posted:Welp, guess I'm shopping for a lawyer. Thanks for the advice all. You're welcome, please let me know if you prefer Venmo or Cashapp for my 1/3 of your payout
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Your honor, objection, this derail sucks and has just gone on too long Fair enough, any other subjects lawyers find annoying every time they come up? I ask purely out of curiosity, of course  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 19:58
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Fair enough, any other subjects lawyers find annoying every time they come up? I ask purely out of curiosity, of course "beyond the shadow of a doubt"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Your honor, objection, this derail sucks and has just gone on too long Objection overruled
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Carillon posted:This was a while ago, but my partner was run over on her bike by a car. She got a pretty basic offer from the other persons insurance. I encouraged her to get an attorney and it was 100% worth all the money he 'took'. He helped us get coverage for everything that wasn't covered in the first offer, and helped engage our own insurance which I hadn't even considered. Absolutely the best thing out of that lovely situation was working with that guy. Lawyers.... Good?E?E
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 15:31
|
|