- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.
A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.
Tuna Cowboy discussed that below, it appears there are cases that show otherwise listed on the link he sent. In theory that is how jury’s should work. From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
Reading through all of it, it’s exactly as I thought it was, but I kept the complexity out
You cannot give jury instructions related to jury nullification. The judge can’t get anywhere near the topic, and lawyers cannot directly argue the jury should acquit based on the law being unjust (they can certainly imply it though)
You cannot have already decided your verdict before the case, including based on the law involved. This is generally a moot point, because jury selection should catch this. If it doesn’t and you didn’t lie, then that’s on the judge
So, they will never tell you that you have this power as a juror. But you do, in all cases
The only complicated part is on the part of the judge and the defense
Yeah, much of the issues brought up seem to be tied to prohibition where if guilty charges increased dramatically (roughly from 3 to 30 percent) it would say they are entering with a predetermined thought of going against the law. The other common cases brought up were all tied to racism.