My understanding from what my mother said (please remember this was 30 years ago), was that if they had listened to what the judge told them in his instructions, there was no way they should have not found the bystander/giver-of-aid guilty. The impression of the jury was that the judge expected them to return a guilty verdict. He acted (or so I am told) very annoyed that they returned an innocent verdict. (And, yes, the jury did feel that the only person who should have even been considered for an A&B charge in the whole affair was the store manager.) I don’t know if the fact that this happened in Ann Arbor, a university town, has anything to do with it.

I’ve only sat on one jury myself, a malpractice trial, and it was obvious by halfway through the plaintiff’s first expert witness that it was a defendant’s verdict, and blatantly obvious by the end of the second expert witness. Note to those prosecuting malpractice cases: it makes a better impression on the jury if your expert witnesses agree on what the malpractice was!

So then, the question would have to be, what was the charge to the jury? Were they instructed as you suggest, on that? Based on what LibraryGryffon relates, I don’t think that was the case.

That’s the question – I frankly have a hard time taking LibraryGriffon’s story at face value. If his/her story is right, I can scarcely imagine what the jury instructions must have been. That it is illegal to use force in defense of another? That aggrieved shopkeepers have a legal right to pummel the crap out of someone who has ripped them off, and that anyone who comes to the aid of the shoplifter is a criminal, even if the intervening party doesn’t know he’s a shoplifter? It just doesn’t add up.

Speaking purely hypothetically, if the judge really did instruct the jury that it must find the defendant guilty for using reasonable force to defend a party that he reasonably but mistakenly believed to be innocent, and which he reasonably and accurately believed to be in danger of serious bodily injury, then I don’t fault the jury for refusing to follow those idiotic instructions. I would also hope that a court of appeal would have little trouble reaching the same result if the jury had followed such patently illegal, and possibly unconstitutional instructions. I just don’t believe that’s what happened.

I agree that the New Jersey Supreme “Court” should have been impeached, as should its Florida counterpart for its similar antics two years earlier. However, I don’t see what a jury of peers has to do with it. The reason the NJ Legislature didn’t do anything about it is because the NJ Legislature is as partisan and as corrupt as that state’s courts are. I don’t see any reason to think the general population of that state is any less partisan than its government, however. If NJ voters had been all that upset about this crooked ruling, they could have registered their disapproval at the ballot box by electing Douglas Forrester. Instead, they effectively ratified the ruling, and Lautenberg won handily.

Yes, Spoons recently became a prosecutor. No apology needed for mixing us up. If you’re going to confuse me with anybody, you could do a lot worse than to confuse me with Spoons.

From your comment “… if it were legal in any state for a shop owner …” Reading that, it sounded like you were confused as to who the defendant was (and a friend reading it also commented on that). OK, so we’re on the same page.

So then, the question would have to be, what was the charge to the jury? Were they instructed as you suggest, on that? Based on what LibraryGryffon relates, I don’t think that was the case.

LG: “While technically true, it wasn’t like the defendant did this as a regular thing, and it could certainly be argued that it was necessary to prevent severe physical harm coming to B, so the jury happily found him not guilty. Thy figured he had not broken the intent of the law, even he had the letter.”

So, barring new information – they were instructed what A&B was, determined the defendant *was* guilty of A&B, and aquitted him.

Which leads us to the other comment thread (And I’ll just comment here on that): you said: “I don’t see how you get from requiring juries to rule on facts alone to NOT allowing juries to function at all. Whether a defendant asserts his right to a jury trial or opts for a bench trial instead, the issues before the court are exactly the same; the only difference being who decides, and not what is decided.”

Because my question to you – and it applies in this case as well – if you and Patterico are correct, let’s take your worldview as a given – Why are juries *mandated*? Why is that an ironclad protection? Given your view, there is no reason to have a jury. Take this case as an example – the jury returned the “wrong” verdict. But I would say, overall, justice was served. Which wouldn’t have happened, had there not been a jury. Judge would have said, yep, that’s A&B, guilty, eh, maybe we’ll go easy on you in sentancing.

“But if the problem is with the jury’s attitude, or that 12 guys who can’t see past their noses think “it ain’t fair,” then that’s a pretty lousy reason to let any individual criminal go free while others just like him do hard time with no recourse.”

Now, on this, we fully agree. The concept of Jury Nullification does worry me, due to well, who I’ve met when I reported for jury duty. I’m not saying that that concept will always lead to more justice, or better decisions. Sure, it *is* the legislature’s JOB to do these things.

But let’s remember what we’re discussing. The governmental framework for a bunch of guys paranoid about a controlling government. Checks. Balances. The only government of it’s time of the people, by the people, derided by the “experts” of the time as completely unworkable. (and has outlived all their systems). Juries are there, in case the legislature hasn’t done it’s job well, or the prosecutor hasn’t done it’s job well, or is doing it maliciously, or just ignorantly.

The reason that juries are mandated as “peers” is exactly because sometimes the legislature *doesn’t* do it’s job. Why was the NJ SC not impeached after the Torricelli/Lautenberg abomination? They weren’t even IMPEACHED, much less removed. Nor was their any attempt to impeach them. Which is the legislature’s job. Full Stop. Which failed. (It’s the most telling case where there was an utter failure of the legislature to act where they were mandated to).

So, extrapolate that to the law, and the fact, as much as it’s a pain, that it’s impossible to cover all the bases. So rather than let the Priesthood of Lawyers be the deciding factor – juries, average people (well, back in the day, they did presume they’d be landowning citizens with a vested interest in the best for the society, and that might have fallen down, just a bit) are the decision makers. Which I read, as just part of the deal, how is the law.

Attempting to remove that (by forcing oaths), however logical, and quite sensible from a lawyer’s perspective, is an abrogation of that entire attempt. Again, I understand the desire to be the gatekeepers, which is what you’re arguing. (really, it is). Much as the Church preferred to translate the Bible for the people, and allow their people to interpret for them. That’s what I see your argument as. And it’s perfectly logical, from a lawyer’s perspective.

Which is why I think juries *should* be allowed, and encouraged to consider the law as part of their decision. Like everything else, it might not be easy, might not be good all the time, has it’s downsides, sure. But IMO, the alternative (Which we’re getting closer and closer to) is worse.

Sorry about the confusion as to the job, I think I’d mixed you and Spoons up, didn’t he just jump into the prosecutorial ring?

How can that *not* be Jury Nullification?

Defendant *did* lay hands on the shopkeeper, and through physical force, and the threat of more – kept him away from the shoplifter.

Indeed, but he also did so under circumstances which, if accurately described by LibraryGryffon, probably would have constituted lawful defense of another. To the extent the defendant did nothing illegal (and protecting someone else from getting beaten senseless is generally not illegal), there was nothing for the jury to nullify.

I don’t know where you got the idea I didn’t read through the story. I did, and am fully aware of who was beating whom, and that it was irrelevant. Maybe there is one oddball state out there somewhere whose laws say anyone who is a victim of a theft has a legal right to beat the thief to a bloody pulp, and that anyone who interferes with that right, even innocently, is guilty of a crime himself. Maybe, but I highly doubt it. More likely, the prosecutor thought the shopkeeper was merely attempting to detain the thief, and that the defendant was an accomplice attempting to help the thief get away, while the jury thought the shoplifter was being unnecessarily rough with the thief, and the defendant was an innocent bystander who simply encountered one guy waling on another and intervened on behalf of the person he reasonably – albeit mistakenly – believed to be the victim.

Um.

How can that *not* be Jury Nullification?

Defendant *did* lay hands on the shopkeeper, and through physical force, and the threat of more – kept him away from the shoplifter.

According to you and Patterico – the jury is negligant. They were charged with finding if he was guilty of the A&B – which apparently he was – and they aquitted.

And I think you didn’t read through the story – the A&B wasn’t against the SHOPKEEPER, it was against a 3rd party who stopped the shopkeeper from beating the shoplifter. So… Again, in your system, where the jury *only* decides on the issues of law presented to them by a judge – he’s guilty, see you in 3 to 5.

But the jury said “what? are you nuts?” and aquitted. Good for them. Because that’s a perfect case in point that shows that your theoretical construct of incredibly smart prosecutors, police, and judges falls apart – *somebody* signed off on that prosecution. On many levels.

So, to take a good case that proves WHY “nullification” is built into the system (And why trying to stack it/make a jury swear it’s not is abhorrent) and not grasp that it is nullification.. Um, exactly what are you arguing again?

Of course it didn’t help that almost all of them had sat on a trial earlier that week involving the same store, prosecuting a shoplifter who bought the tequila but stole the lemon, which showed up in evidence at the trial in the guise of a fuzzy grey/green blob in a baggie. (6 months in the evidence locker without refrigeration will do that to produce….) The trial took 2 days, which the jury felt was an incredible waste of everyone’s time and taxpayer money given the offense in question (the lemon was worth maybe 15 cents at the time). (They did find the shoplifter guilty.) By the time they got to the assault trial they were just a little biased against the store. Or as my mother put it after both trials, “I’m never setting foot in there again, no matter what.”

I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Everyone benefits from having the law uniform and predictable.

I’m disputing that. “Uniform and predictable” sounds like zero-tolerence, and look at how well that has turned out. I do think that prosecutorial discretion is frequently abused, and jury nullification is but one of the ways to fight that. Another method that I used to fight it to campaign to remove the complexity from the criminal code. Another method is to campaign to liberalize the interpretations of the Bill of Rights and return some of the rights to the people that have been taken in the last century or so. None of this is happening in a vaccuum.

I like prosecutorial discretion. I believe a prosecutor has a duty to say, “this case is insane, we should drop it.” I don’t think that happens often enough, and the jury is supposed to be another line of defense, to say, “it is insane to send this guy to jail because he was driving a car and the guy in the backseat had a mirror with cocaine residue on it in his backpack.” There are a whole gaggle of people who were supposed to kill that case long before then, and if it gets to the jury, the jury is supposed to be able to toss that case out on its ear.

“Duh” is right.