Can a judge legally forbid a jury from Nullifying a verdict if they ask him about it before rendering a verdict Let's say I'm part of a jury in a case where I believe jury nullification may be warranted, and that my other jurors may agree with me, and so I suggest it to my fellow jurors. My jurors ask me what would happen if they voted to nullify the verdict and I tell them I can't say for sure, because the legal status of jury nullification is complicated even for the best lawyer, because I'm not a lawyer, and because frankly my knowledge of legal matters is quite haphazard and it's scary to think that the results of a trial and a person's life would depend on my half-remembered understanding of jury nullification. Unfortunately I can't go online to research jury nullification now that I'm a juror so the jury is stuck with my incomplete knowledge as the best information they have to make a decision with. The other jurors, correctly not trusting me to know what I'm talking about, go to the judge to ask about jury nullification and whether it's an option in this trial. The judge is one who is not a fan of jury nullification and does not want to see it happen. Can the judge flat out tell the jury that they cannot vote to nullify the verdict? If the judge did so and the jury chooses to nullify the verdict anyways would the fact that the judge forbade them to do so have any impact on what happens from that point forward? Would the jury risk repercussions for nullifying a verdict against the judge's orders? Finally is there any situation where a jury trying to nullify a verdict could phrase their objection incorrectly such that the judge could take it as a guilty verdict? E.g., if they say &quot;we think you proved the plaintiff did this thing, but we don't believe he should be punished&quot; can the judge rule that they said he was guilty and just ignore the second half?
Can the judge flat out tell the jury that they cannot vote to nullify the verdict? He can but this kind of &quot;jury nullification&quot; makes little sense and is obvious that is not possible. A verdict is rendered by the jury. Once the verdict is rendered, there is no further vote. It would also make little sense for a jury to render a guilty verdict and later have another vote to nullify the previous verdict. From now one I will refer to jury nullification as we usually refer to it: the jury returns a not guilty verdict, although the jury believes the accused is guilty of the crime (rather than returning a guilty verdict and later nullify it, which is what you are implying here) A different question would be &quot;can the judge ask the jury to not engage in jury nullification&quot;? Yes he/she can. A judge can respond that jury nullification is not possible. If the jury convicts, this false information by the judge is generally deemed a harmless error on appeal, and the conviction is upheld If the judge did so and the jury chooses to nullify the verdict anyways would the fact that the judge forbade them to do so have any impact on what happens from that point forward? No. Jury nullification is part and parcel of common law, and it could well be part of the &quot;jury trial&quot; granted by the Constitution. Would the jury risk repercussions for nullifying a verdict against the judges orders? Only for jury nullification no. They can face repercussions if they lie in voir dire and say that they will follow the law as given to them no matter what, for example. Finally is there any situation where jury trying to nullify a verdict could phrase their objection incorrectly such that the judge could rule it as a guilty verdict (ie if they say &quot;we think you proved the plaintiff did this thing, but we don't believe he should be punished&quot; can the judge rule that they said he was guilty and just ignore the second half?) Juries return a guilty/not guilty verdict. They don't return their thoughts to the court (&quot;we think that....&quot;). They simply say &quot;guilty&quot; or &quot;not guilty&quot;. If for some unknown reason they should choose to tell the judge more than what is required from them, jury nullification is still an option of the jury and something that the jury can do, have the right to do, so the judge will not be able to override the jury. But this is something that should not happen. If the jury wants to engage in jury nullification, they have to tell the judge &quot;not guilty&quot; and nothing more. The jury doesn't have to explain its decision to acquit.
This wouldn't be customary and is probably improper, but the judge may have been trying to do you a favor. In the absence of being under oath, the judge could not consider anything said in your closing statement as evidence. If you are under oath, the judge can weigh something you say in your closing statement against the other evidence when making a ruling.
When a judge decides a case there will be An order - e.g. &quot;Smith shall pay Jones £100,000&quot; Reasons for the decision - i.e. a description of the evidence, and the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning. Sometimes a party, even though they have completely won, is nevertheless aggrieved by some things the judge has said in the Reasons (or in the way the judge has handled the trial - e.g. the judge's interventions). For example the judge may have said that the winning party was not a credible witness but they nevertheless won because of the evidence of other witnesses who were found to be credible. The rule in England and Wales is that you can only appeal orders. So if the order is completely in your favour you cannot appeal just because you don't like the reasons.
An appeal to ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. That is not in any way the situation here. The defendant knows if he/she has or has not so the only available answers under oath are "yes" or "no" - the jury knows this too so any other answer will be seen as disingenuous. However, this information (affirmative or negative) is off limits to the jury as it could prejudice their decision, hence the mistrial. A quick judge could instruct the defendant not to answer and instruct the jury to disregard the question but if a conviction results the defence team could use the fact that it was asked as grounds for appeal. A judge must decide if the interests of justice are better served by a retrial or a tainted conviction.
Why does someone need to know? Supreme Court decisions are effective to all cases at trial or on direct appeal when decided, so long as the issue it resolves are raised in the trial court. Judges generally don't suspend cases because a case that could change the law is pending. If the decision comes out shortly after the trial, the judge can overturn the result in a post-trial motion. If the decision comes out later, the issue can be raised on appeal. A smart plaintiff raises favorable issues that could be decided in his or her favor in pending appellate cases to leave the door open for that possibility. If the law is unsettled, the judge makes a best guess about how the higher courts will resolve it and is effectively free to choose either outcome knowing that the result is uncertain. If there is binding precedent on an issue at the time, the judge must follow it, even if there is a likelihood that it could be reversed on appeal. People are presumed to know the law, but it's not possible to know what future decisions the Supreme Court of the USA will make. Therefore, the existing written precedents should be relied upon in their present form, and the case at trial should continue without delay. This kind of consideration is mostly relevant only in cases of &quot;qualified immunity&quot; and in certain kinds of federal habeas corpus petitions (which collaterally attack criminal convictions affirmed on direct appeal). In those cases, law enforcement conduct is not punished, and judicial decisions are not overturned, unless there was clearly established law at the time the decision was made that made the law enforcement conduct unconstitutional, or make the judicial decision a wrongly decided one. In all other contexts, what was believed to be the law at the time an action was taken, or a judicial decision was made, doesn't matter.
Affirmative defenses generally have a subjective or objective factual test for the jury to consider. In this case, the test may be something along the lines of &quot;Given the totality of the circumstances, did the defendant take objectively reasonable precautions to make sure the victim was not underage, or would the defendant in particular have any additional reason to believe the victim was underage despite their precautions.&quot; So to answer the original question more specifically, a person could still be guilty of the rape even if the victim took steps to try to trick them if the jury is unconvinced that the defendant acted objectively or subjectively reasonably (depending on the local statutes). A prosecutor could show the jury the fake ID card, for example, and argue that it is obviously fake, or argue that there are other factors that should have led to the defendant knowing that the person was underage - for example, because the defendant has met the victim before and would have known their approximate age.
No. There is a clear distinction between: evidence (or testimony), which consists of statements of fact given by witnesses on oath (subject to prosecution for perjury), governed by the rules of evidence, and which the jury is required to consider but not accept (in the sense that a verdict which is not supported by the evidence can be set aside on appeal), submissions, which consist of argument by the lawyers for the parties, which the jury is not required to consider or accept, and directions, which consist of statements of law given by the judge, which the jury is required to accept. The jury is required by its oath to follow the law as stated by the judge, even if it is wrong. The remedy for erroneous trial directions (an appeal) is different to the remedy for erroneous evidence (a perjury prosecution in the case of deliberate lies; nothing in the case of innocent errors). Because the jury has the power, but not the right, to nullify a charge by disobeying the judge’s directions, there is a sense in which the jury is free to reject the judge’s directions just as it is free to reject evidence. However, this is completely inconsistent with the theory that defines the roles of judge and jury. There is no legal basis for viewing judicial directions as a kind of expert testimony. ‘The power, but not the right’ Obie 2.0 asked about this phrase. It coems from the Case of the Dean of St Asaph, which is reported at R v Shipley (1784) 4 Doug 73. The relevant passage is summarised in Lord Devlin's Trial by Jury (1956), at p 87: Jury’s Power of Acquittal There may well be cases in which the killing is not in doubt and the formal direction not to return a verdict of manslaughter is therefore tantamount to a direction to return a verdict of Guilty. Still, if the direction is ignored, the court must, I think, accept the verdict. There is no way in which a verdict of acquittal can be nullified. As Lord Chief Justice Mansfield put it in 1784: “It is the duty of the judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.” Mr. Justice Willes said: “I admit the jury have the power of finding a verdict against the law and so they have of finding a verdict against evidence, but I deny they have the right to do so.” The Chief Justice of Australia held to similar effect in Gammage v The Queen (1969) 122 CLR 444, writing: [The jury] have no right, in my opinion, to return a verdict of manslaughter where they are satisfied of murder. But, as I have said, persistence by them in returning another verdict must ultimately result in the acceptance of that verdict. In that sense, but in no other sense, it is both within their power and, if you will, their privilege to return a wrong verdict. To answer Obie 2.0's question, the jury has the power to ignore the judge's directions, because – at least at the time Lord Devlin was writing in 1956 – a verdict of acquittal could not be nullified. However, the jury does not have the right to do so because the law requires it to follow the directions. As Ed999 observes, the law governing jury trials does vary between jurisdictions. In particular, some jurisdictions (which lack the United States' constitutional double jeopardy clause) now allow for a jury acquittal to be set aside on appeal. However, the fundamental distinction between a witness’s evidence and a judge’s directions was established in England centuries ago, and remains applicable throughout the common law world. It is worth specifically mentioning the United States because jury nullification remains a controversial topic in that jurisdiction. However, the basic principle that the jury is legally required to follow the judge’s directions was established in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), and described by Ginsburg J (albeit in a dissenting judgment) as ‘conclusive’ in Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415, 447 (1994). In Sparf, the opinion of the court was: We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.
The details depend on jurisdiction, but all jurisdictions I know of will excuse jurors if they are medically unfit for jury duty. So the best option would be to try and obtain a medical/psychological certification that you are not fit for jury duty. Of course this assumes you have someone (such as your psychologist, your psychiatrist or your general practitioner) who is willing to write such a certification. Also, find out what it takes for this to be accepted by the court; for example, must it be from a physician, can it be from a psychologist? Finally, if you are honest with the authorities, you will hopefully be excluded. Keep in mind that the court system needs reliable jurors; if you have a nervous breakdown in court, that could cause a mistrial with significant cost, it's in the court's best interest to avoid that.