It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case.
In law, a directed verdict is an order from the judge presiding over a jury trial that one side or the other wins. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
This could merit its own topic. We heard of the teen who was charged with attempted lynching because the cops claimed he yelled "kick her ass" to a friend who was being detained. He faced 7 years in jail for that. He was bailed out by a google engineer who saw the news story. Afaik there is 0 indication for the accusation to even be true. He was just filming the encounter. Now the really crap part. His house got raided. Every communication medium seized. Even privilidged attorney-client papers. Also everything his family has. This just makes my blood boil
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by dubiousone
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
* * * if I as Foreman can nullify the case citing the defendant's right to have the case recorded to prevent a case of corruption and neglect. * * *
Any juror has the power to "nullify" simply by voting "not guilty". A juror is not required to justify their decision to anyone.edit on 1/29/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)
Jury nullification comes from the Judge, not the jury. A judge can nullify, or set aside, a juries verdict is he/she beleives the conclusion of the jury is not in line with the evidence or law. This is rare for the obvious reasons and usually gives ground for an appeal.
As a juror, once the verdict is read there is an option to poll the jury. The judge will go person to person and ask how they voted for a matter of record.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by dubiousone
Check my post at the top of this page. Thats why I asked if we were saying the same thing using a different term.
I am aware of the judge not being able to overturn a not guilty verdict, since it would violate the 6th amendment as well as the 5th for double jeopardy grounds.