This week we received a letter from Yolo County resident Christina Parker.
She writes:
I feel the need to confess something, because it is weighing heavily on my conscious.
Just last week, I was summoned for jury duty. It was a simple violation of a restraining order, but because of my personal knowledge of Reisig’s lack of integrity and honest justice in Yolo County, the man in the accused position of this case had I been selected for jury, would have gotten a hung jury results from the jury panel. I simply would have not believed the D.A.’s office for anything, and I believe I would have voted “innocent” at all cost just to spite the D.A.’s office.
What has the wrongdoings of his office done to others if this is how I would have dealt with this man’s future in my hands? I know I wanted to ruin the D.A.’s “100% conviction record” simply because it is wrong, and he has done a lot of people wrong since he took the office. I wanted to speak up during jury selection as to my bias against the D.A.’s office, but I knew I would be marking myself and my children in the future for harassment from his office, and possibly being set up by them. (as we know that is not beyond him).
I am grateful I was dismissed at the end of selection, and I did not face the choice of this dilemma inside my heart.
It does however make me think of the things other people every day going through our jury system and our justice system are thinking when they have to face our justice system, or decide for another’s future through our system. Reisig has sure crippled our justice here in Yolo County.
Jury Nullification is a potentially powerful tool.
In his 1998 book Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, Clay S. Conrad defines jury nullification as: “Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust.”
Steve Silverman is the executive director of Flex Your Rights, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit launched in 2002 that works “to address injustices and disparities in the criminal justice system by educating the public about basic constitutional rights.”
Early this year Mr. Silverman wrote about a proposed 40-minute film, Not Guilty: A Juror’s Guide to Protecting Good People from Bad Laws.
“The main storyline features a young woman being interviewed by a reporter. She’s outing herself as the holdout juror who refused to convict a high-profile medical marijuana grower, leading to his acquittal,” he writes.
Mr. Silverman adds, “Through flashbacks, we learn how she embraced the news of her jury summons. Instead of avoiding service – like so many of us try to do – she carefully prepared to improve her odds of getting selected. We see how she cleverly responds to lawyers’ questions intended to weed-out conscientious jurors. Then we watch how she deftly deals with jury members initially set on conviction.”
“Jury nullification is the practice of finding a defendant ‘not guilty’ even if the evidence shows that a law was broken. As a well-established constitutional doctrine in American case law, it’s employed to protect defendants from laws that jurors feel are unjust,” he writes.
However, he notes, “Most jurors are not aware of their power to nullify the law. Even fewer know how to intelligently exercise that right. Moreover, judges often do everything in their power to keep jurors in the dark about their right. (New Hampshire is the only state that allows defense attorneys to inform juries of their right to judge the law.)”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
When people become jurors, the most important thing is to look only at the evidence.
Jurors need to understand that both the defense and prosecutors have their own agendas. Jurors should never assume a person is guilty just because the prosecutor says it is so.
Jurors should not be able to nullify laws just because ‘they’ feel they are unjust. They should just judge cases by the evidence.
How would you enforce that Rusty?
I am confused by Silverman’s statement that “most jurors are not aware of their power to nullify the law.” I sat on jury on a case with 12 different charges and from beginning to end the judge told us that we must reach our verdict by weighing the evidence in light of the law as it is written. In fact, the actual written law on a number of the charges surprised the jury because our understanding of what “attempted robbery” meant (for example) was different from the conditions that the law said MUST occur for an act to be considered attempted robbery.
So is Silverman suggesting that the judge lied to us or hid the truth from us about our “right” to rewrite the law? As faulty as some laws may be, I think, if I were on trial, I would rather know that a jury is sticking to the narrow definitions contained therein rather than modifying or ignoring the statute.
David:
“How would you enforce that Rusty?”
I don’t know David since they are lying in order to get on the jury in the first place. I just know it’s wrong.
How do you feel about it?
What a disgraceful lack of citizen responsibility reflected in this “confession.” Supposedly biased because of her ignorance of reality, Ms. Parker purposely would fail in her duties as a juror by, first, refusing to admit her bias during the selection process and, again, in prejudging the defendant based on her unfounded feelings.
This shameful performance has nothing to do with the practice of juror nullification–she wouldn’t have found 11 like-minded, ignorant folks on her jury to nullify anything. Her objective is not to “protect people from bad laws,” but to gum up our system because she’s misguided about the DA.
We’re fortunate that most citizens take seriously the “power to the jury” that comes their way from time to time. Weighing guilt and innocence is a heavy burden; Ms. Parker’s approach is as bad as one that would go into the process planning a “guilty” vote.
Any recommendations to help Ms. Parker clean up her act before she’s called again? Therapy? Come to think of it, did you confirm that she isn’t just a Vanguard troll here to work us up with a phony tale? Yikes!
I’m pleased to stand with Fight Against Injustice in this.
Rusty: I have mixed feelings. As a widespread practice it would bring the system to a halt. On the other hand, I think some ridiculous things are charged that loosely fall under the law. And there are also some incredibly poorly written laws as well as ill-conceived ones. But all of that is subjective which makes for inconsistent jury verdicts.
“Come to think of it, did you confirm that she isn’t just a Vanguard troll here to work us up with a phony tale? Yikes! “
I know the individual well and they have legitimate reasons for their beliefs.
So what if a jury were to “nullify” the other way and in its deliberations apply its own standards to find someone guilty who was not. For example, what if the law said that in attempted robbery the accused must have used fear to extract something from the victim? Further, what if the jury said that because the accused was black and the victim was white that the race of the accused alone was fear causing? What if they chose to find the person guilty on that basis? Is that jury nullification or a very selective interpretation of the law? Would that be acceptable?
Where would this end? I can be empathetic to the harm that the local DA has done to people in this county but if the solution is to call into question the integrity of the entire system that feels like a price to high for me. Further, if the issue really is the way charges are heaped on charges then that is not a jury’s problem but rather a failure in the system that must be dealt with in another way. To lay the burden on the jury to mend, in an individual case, the failures of the legal system is unfair to those selected to serve. I shudder to think of having to bear that burden as a juror.
“…a price too high for me…”
David, would you feel the same way if you had citizens lying so they get picked for the jury because they want to try and make sure that cases are ruled in favor of the prosecution? Maybe you have people who feel the justice system is too lenient and want to try and change that.
Rusty: No. People are entitled to the presumption of innocence. If a juror overrides that, the case likely gets overturned.
So what’s the difference, in both cases you have people trying to game the system in order to try and promote their agenda?
“I knew I would be marking myself and my children in the future for harassment from his office, and possibly being set up by them. (as we know that is not beyond him).”
Is she being a little paranoid here? Ya think?
I’ll bet she no longer will have to worry about serving jury duty in Yolo County.
The difference is the presumption of innocence.
“Is she being a little paranoid here? Ya think? “
I guess when you watch people get rung through the system, the benefit of the doubt decreases.
[quote]DG: “I know the individual well and they have legitimate reasons for their beliefs.”[/quote]Don’t it always seem to go that unreasonable and unhealthy prejudice comes from people who feel they have “legitimate reasons for their beliefs.”
Wouldn’t you just love to be trying to do your duty to convict a guilty person and find Ms. Parker in the room determined to hang your jury simply to spite DA Reisig?
Her unfounded belief in the DA’s “100% conviction rate” is only part of the evidence that her rant’s not grounded in reality. (She should read the [i]Vanguard[/i] more to educate herself on how often he misses the mark.)
Lots of people–usually folks who have committed crimes–get “rung through the system.” Sabotaging our system isn’t an appropriate response even if one has been convicted by it. Understandable attitude maybe, but not right.
Jury nullification as a form of civil disobedience and civil rights has had a lot going for it as part of our government’s history. Ms. Parker’s nasty story doesn’t deserve to be connected.
We only can hope that rusty49 is correct, that she’ll immediately be dismissed if she’s called again. Her [i]Vanguard[/i] screed should disqualify her.
I’ve been called to jury duty four times. Dismissed twice, served twice. Served once as an alternate on a very complicated felony charge, several years ago. On the last day of that trial, I drove home from Woodland to Davis, walked into my kitchen, spoke on the phone to the court & was told the jury was done deliberating & found the man guilty. (In less than one hour, total.) I shook w/anxiety & disbelief, because I sat throughout the trial & heard all the evidence. I couldn’t fathom how that jury decided so quickly. That experience was one reason why, years later, I advised a friend to plea bargain. Juries are just unpredictable, especially in Yolo Co. I agree w/ Fight Against Injustice’s last sentence.
If 12 jurors begin deliberation with having been convinced beyond all doubt during the presentation and arguments that the defendant is guilty, how long should they discuss their conclusions before returning? Within an hour seems reasonable, but it’s impossible for people not in the room to have much room to criticize the dynamics of what happens inside.
If a person did the crime, should he or she take a plea bargain? If one’s innocent, should one? Maybe, and [b]never[/b], would be my advice.
Juries are unpredictable everywhere, but mostly they get it right, in my opinion. The process has subsequently delivered up both notable and routine exceptions, of course.
I support JustSayings comments above.
Furthermore I find Ms. Parker’s statements loony, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt.
There are legitimate ways to protest laws (and courts) you don’t agree with; her way is not one of them.
I have to agree with David,
I think if Christina Parker’s experiences are truly her own accountable witnessing to crooked moves on the D.A.’s part, she has every reason to disbelieve in the word of a man whom everyone should be able to listen to, and not question any agenda that the District Attorney’s office might be hiding. However, I’m sure she isn’t the only one who feels this way in our county. I am glad she never made it to the jury box as she stated she was glad she didn’t. She did not have to face a internal battle with her own morals, and her knowledge of misconduct. She obviously knew it would be wrong, but she probably felt “to cure the cancer in the D.A.’s office is out of her reach acting as a singular”. when I see in her confession, she was wanting to show how the general public is feeling now that Reisig has been in office for quite a while, I see she is feeling at risk, and vulnerable to a dirty system we now have. Who knows who will fall victim next. Reisig isn’t serving our community… He is serving himself.