tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post9150817256169125532..comments2024-03-28T00:50:16.901-05:00Comments on Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center: Mark Bennett and Jury NullificationMurray Newmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00662196272138109874noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-37085973317182505172009-05-28T18:43:24.015-05:002009-05-28T18:43:24.015-05:00my case just got dismissed by grand jury and the g...my case just got dismissed by grand jury and the guy admitted he hit me with bat. They spent 10 mins on my case that I spend 6 months to prepare. DA told me I waited too long, but I followed the texas statue of limitations...your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-21474696349629366362008-03-31T17:24:00.000-05:002008-03-31T17:24:00.000-05:00First, I didn't say anything about prosecutor pros...First, I didn't say anything about prosecutor prosecutors who got not guilty verdicts.<BR/><BR/>I just said that when twelve citizens unanimously agree that a prosecutor sought a conviction in a case in which a conviction would be unjust, that a grievance would be appropriate, and should be sustained, because the prosecutor's ambition caused him or her to ignore their oath. It is unethical for a prosecutor to seek an unjust conviction; a panel of 12 citizens is a pretty good measure to use for whether the conviction sought would be unjust.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the civil rights murders and lynching cases rarely involved nullification. See Conrad, Scapegoating the Jury, 7 Cornell Jrl. Law & Pub. Pol'y 7 (1997) for a full critique of how judges, police and prosecutors all sought acquittals in those cases -- and then blamed the jury for the media. <BR/><BR/>After all, do you really think someone gets elected DA, Judge or Sheriff in a Klan county without Klan support?<BR/><BR/>Funny how when the same cases went before FEDERAL courts, with different judges, prosecutors and investigators, but with a jury chosen from the same local populace, the result was almost always a conviction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-77896585061214157242008-03-28T17:54:00.000-05:002008-03-28T17:54:00.000-05:00Oh, and by the way, I'm totally jealous that David...Oh, and by the way, I'm totally jealous that David Simon commented on Mark's blog. I read Simon's incredible book "Homicide: Life on the Streets" when it first came out. I own the entirety of the Homicide series on DVD, as well as the Wire.<BR/><BR/>It just isn't fair that Simon goes to that cheap hussy Mark's blog, and not mine! :-)Murray Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00662196272138109874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-10650581403252847672008-03-28T17:51:00.000-05:002008-03-28T17:51:00.000-05:00John,I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to s...John,<BR/>I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say.<BR/><BR/>Ron,<BR/>You are right that a Defendant's silence is sometimes the "white elephant in the room", which is why it is good that there are 12 people back there and not 1. I'm not naive enough to think that a Defendant's silence doesn't enter jurors' minds, but I do think that they police each other if one of them tries to bring it up in deliberations. I like your phrasing of "intellectually pure", because I think that goes to the root of the divide here.<BR/><BR/>Anon 12:01,<BR/>I think Omar Little may have been the most original and fascinating character ever created on TV. I've often thought of Larry McMurtry as a "literary serial killer" who creates awesome characters and then kills them off. Maybe David Simon has the same inclinations as McMurtry.<BR/><BR/>Grits,<BR/>I think all of this is a semantic argument, anyway. Ron mentioned "intellectually pure", and I think from the intellecutally pure standpoint, that jurors ARE, in fact, to not nullify. They can find somebody not guilty for thousands of other reasons (who can really quantify beyond a reasonable doubt). I do think that most (if not all) judges would shut down a defense attorney's argument for nullification as being improper, and I think that the Rules would support them doing so. All in all, I think this argument is the Sound and the Fury signifying nothing. Juries are going to do what juries are going to do.<BR/><BR/>Anon 2:35,<BR/>Congratulations on adding a little element of ignorance into an otherwise good discussion. Prosecuting prosecutors who get "not guilty" verdicts? That's brilliant, and not crazy in the slightest. You may want to stay on the Chronicle blog for future reference. Alan Bernstein needs the validation.Murray Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00662196272138109874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-46435904950697604112008-03-28T14:35:00.000-05:002008-03-28T14:35:00.000-05:00It is interesting that a prosecutor is required to...It is interesting that a prosecutor is required to take an oath to seek justice, not merely convictions.<BR/><BR/>In every case in which a jury nullifies, the jury has unanimously agreed that what the prosecutor was seeking was NOT justice.<BR/><BR/>Instead of going after the jurors, shouldn't we go after the prosecutors who are seeking unjust convictions? Or does that not bother you a bit?<BR/><BR/>Do you think, like you're tarnished idol Kelly Siegler, that anything is permissible in seeking a conviction -- including ignoring the PROSECUTOR's oath not to seek injustice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-55518646972145158802008-03-28T12:54:00.000-05:002008-03-28T12:54:00.000-05:00I was also distraught when they killed Omar, but i...I was also distraught when they killed Omar, but in the final episode a teenage street hood had replaced him as the "new Omar," and the game goes on.<BR/><BR/>That said, on the jury nullification question, you're wrong that it's abandoning the rule of law. Jurors are charged to make a decision. They aren't violating the law because they don't rule the way you like. Barring bribery or undue outside influence, they're responsible only to their own conscience and God as to how they decide. Prosecutors complaining about nullification is just sour grapes. Usually, in the rare cases when it happens, it just means the ADA brought a BS case in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I don't think light treatment was given to the example of jury nullification in the murders of civil rights workers. The reality is that those jurors WERE NOT prosecuted, so the example does not support the Guest Blogger's position.<BR/><BR/>Ron's right - when I hear someone who wants to prosecute jurors for unjustified <I>guilty</I> verdicts that violate the same oath, I might begin to have more sympathy. That's a LOT more common than nullification, by a longshot.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-67253962930123414092008-03-28T12:01:00.000-05:002008-03-28T12:01:00.000-05:00This talk is great and all, but can we get back to...This talk is great and all, but can we get back to prosecuting the writers of The Wire for killing off Omar? I'm totally behind that idea. I mean, why? Why Omar?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-72189280490135888182008-03-28T10:23:00.000-05:002008-03-28T10:23:00.000-05:00In a way the court's instructions on the 5th are l...In a way the court's instructions on the 5th are like saying "don't think about a white elephant."<BR/><BR/>Just as there have been jurors who didn't render a guilty when they probably should have, there have been jurors who have convicted over some doubt when the defendant didn't testify.<BR/><BR/>We want an intellectually pure system. It just doesn't exist.Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-88655130310235360172008-03-28T01:57:00.000-05:002008-03-28T01:57:00.000-05:00Kind of a funny point to make given that jury null...Kind of a funny point to make given that jury nullification is pretty much the whole point of trial by jury in the first place...not having it would violate the sixth amendment, so I'm not sure why you'd be so concerned with jurors nullifying the fifth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042614916726935148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7566778230970156239.post-2187873860817492092008-03-27T21:16:00.000-05:002008-03-27T21:16:00.000-05:00Mark,I will be sure and tell of my friends that ar...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I will be sure and tell of my friends that are a bit radical to the right that they are free to ignore the fifth amendment. According to many lawyers in our community, it is perfectly OK to lie during voir dire. While we are at it, they can lie about being open to the minimum range of punishment as well.hcresidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12605875021407938354noreply@blogger.com