Many of us have received it at one point or another—the dreaded jury summons. You arrive home, collect your mail, and get the letter mandating that you show up at a particular courthouse at a given date and time. Many of us see jury duty as a necessary inconvenience—serving on a jury is part of our civic duties, but it absolutely can be an annoying interruption to our daily lives. And most people think being on a jury is incredibly simple—if you’re selected, it’s your job to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts, evidence, and testimony you’re shown. But what many people don’t realize is that guilt and innocence, as they are currently defined, are far from the only options. There’s one particularly controversial option open to juries that you may have never heard of: jury nullification. Read on to learn about jury nullification, what it is, and why it’s important to the American justice system.

Jury Nullification: A Primer

Jury nullification is essentially when a jury decides to acquit a defendant not because the evidence indicates that they were innocent, but because they disagree with the law or the harshness of the punishment the law mandates. Sometimes this is done to make some sort of political point; sometimes it happens on an individual basis. For example, imagine you have a woman, in a state where medical marijuana is illegal, who has purchased marijuana to give to her sister who has cancer and is suffering from nausea. If the buyer is caught, she could be charged for her crime—in this case, purchasing marijuana. There may be all the evidence in the world to indicate that she did buy the marijuana. In fact, the jury may believe beyond a reasonable doubt—the burden in a criminal case—that she is guilty of purchasing marijuana. But, if the jury believes that purchasing marijuana for medical reasons shouldn’t be against the law, or that the punishment that the woman would receive for purchasing marijuana is unduly harsh, they can still recommend an acquittal. At the most basic level, jury nullification means that a jury has chosen to acquit a defendant, despite believing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury nullification is possible in the United States based on a few different principles. For one, if someone is acquitted of a crime, per the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, they cannot be tried again. Jury nullification is also possible because juries cannot be punished for the decisions that they make (although someone who becomes part of a jury with the intent to push jury nullification or in some other way not uphold their duties can technically be prosecuted, however rarely.) But generally speaking, for ethical reasons, juries cannot be punished for the decisions they come to, or the important American principle of being judged by a jury of your peers would simply be moot. Additionally, judges cannot direct a verdict of guilt, the way that they can a verdict of innocence if the evidence doesn’t match the conviction.

It’s difficult to actually quantify the number of acquittals that stem from jury nullification. Juries are never under any sort of obligation to explain why they have come to the decisions that they did—although individual jurors may speak about their opinions, if they so wish. Some researchers have attempted to study the subject, and indicate that jury nullification most likely plays a role in fewer than 10 percent of cases, but there’s no real way to pinpoint exactly which cases were affected by jury nullification.

Shh…

One thing that could contribute to jury nullification’s relative obscurity is that it’s in many ways a well-kept American secret. In fact, most people seemingly don’t know that it’s a possibility, and they almost certainly aren’t told about it while serving on a jury. An 1895 Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. United States, found that jurors aren’t guaranteed any sort of Constitutional right to be told about jury nullification. In many cases, attorneys will actively try to avoid seating jurors who may know about jury nullification by asking roundabout questions along the lines of: “do you have any beliefs that might keep you from making a decision purely on the basis of the law?”

While a juror cannot be punished for an acquittal, people can get in trouble as a consequence of jury nullification. One high-profile instance involved a man named Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who was an advocate for jury nullification. He was charged with jury tampering in 2011. He used to stand outside of a federal courthouse in Manhattan and hand out pamphlets about jury nullification, brandishing a sign that said “Jury Info.” He didn’t target any particular jurors, rather attempted to hand the pamphlets to anyone who walked by his station. The charges against Heicklen were dismissed in 2012, but the idea that informing people about jury nullification could be tantamount to jury tampering isn’t too far-fetched to imagine.

Specific Cases of Jury Nullification in the United States

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States. In fact, an early and well-known example actually predates the nation. In 1735, a man named John Peter Zenger printed articles that criticized the colonial British government. Zenger lived in the colony of New York, and it was against the law for him to publish anything without governmental approval. As a result of his controversial publications, he was charged with libel. Despite the fact that there was no question about whether or not Zenger had written the articles—he actually presented an affirmative defense in which he admitted that they were his work—the jury acquitted him.

Throughout American history, there have been other notable instances in which jury nullification is believed to have been used. Some were seemingly noble; others were almost certainly not. The Fugitive Slave Act was updated in 1850 to prescribe up to six months in prison for anyone who was found guilty of helping fugitive slaves escape. It’s widely believed that some of the acquittals that came out of that era came from abolitionist jurors essentially practicing jury nullification. On the other hand, there’s also evidence to suggest that jury nullification popped up in the Jim Crow-era south with some amount of frequency, when all-white juries chose not to convict white defendants who were accused of violence against black citizens.

There have also been recent cases of suspected jury nullification involving public figures. Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was acquitted of 13 out of 14 drug charges, despite overwhelming evidence, including a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine. Barry’s lawyers argued that he was entrapped by the federal government. Barry, a longtime civil rights leader, was very beloved in D.C. and it was a popular belief in the nation’s capital at the time that he was targeted for his political stances and his role as one of the nation’s most prominent black elected officials.

Perhaps one of the most well-known suspected cases of jury nullification is O.J. Simpson. Although many of the jurors involved in that decision have come forward to say that they were compelled by the evidence presented by Simpson’s defense attorneys, Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran, was accused of hinting at the concept of jury nullification in his closing argument by the prosecutor in the case, Marcia Clark.

Other suspected jury nullification situations include the cases of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the controversial physician-assisted suicide advocate who killed patients he deemed to be terminally ill; Lorena Bobbitt, the woman who cut her husband’s penis off after she claimed he raped her; and Oliver North, the NSA staff member who claimed responsibility for the sale of some weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

While it’s obviously next to impossible to know exactly why juries chose to acquit Barry, Simpson, Kevorkian, Bobbitt, North, and many others, jury nullification was suspected based on the amount of evidence damning the defendants, and the decision on the jury’s part to acquit despite that evidence.

Conclusion

While serving on jury duty may not be the most glamorous of activities, it is often viewed as one of the most noble civic duties each American is beholden to. But, guilt and innocence aren’t always as black and white as they seem on “Law & Order.” In many cases, jurors take moral issue with the convictions they’re asked to participate in. That’s where jury nullification sometimes comes in. While advocates argue that it’s a way for jurors to protest unfair laws, detractors argue that it makes an unfair playing field for those accused of the same crimes, and can sometimes be used for nefarious or heavily biased purposes. But while jury nullification is somewhat of a well-kept secret, it sometimes makes its way in to the spotlight—often in cases that are beholden to the court of public opinion.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is Jury Nullification? appeared first on Law Street.

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Alabama, Florida, and Delaware are the only states to have ever allowed judicial override in capital cases. In the 2016 case Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida’s sentencing scheme in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In response to the high court’s ruling, Delaware’s Supreme Court ruled its state’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional a few months later.

In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by an Alabama death row inmate who claimed he was sentenced under a scheme similar to Florida’s. Alabama’s Supreme Court upheld judicial override nine months later. In spite of these victories, it seems that Alabama was no longer willing to put resources toward defending judicial override in court.

Following Hurst v. Florida, the Florida legislature amended its sentencing practices to reinstate capital punishment. However, Delaware’s General Assembly has yet to pass any such legislation, meaning there is an effective halt on the death penalty in the state. By amending its sentencing laws, Alabama has put an end to a recurrent legal battle and ensured the perpetuity of capital punishment in the state.

While Alabama has removed judicial override, its new sentencing practices could still face legal challenges. Following the chain of events set in motion by Hurst v. Florida, Alabama is now the only state that allows a jury to non-unanimously recommend the death penalty.

Before the Hurst v. Florida ruling, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware allowed a jury to recommend the death penalty with 10 of 12 votes. In the same ruling that banned judicial override, Delaware’s Supreme Court deemed non-unanimous recommendations unconstitutional. While Florida’s initial legislation preserved the practice, the Florida Supreme Court later found non-unanimous recommendations constitutional.

Alabama’s Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold non-unanimous death penalty recommendations, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the matter. The overwhelming consensus against the practice suggests Alabama could once again find itself in court.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court? appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison yesterday by Judge Carlos A Samour, without possibility of parole. He will be serving 12 consecutive life sentences, and an additional 3,318 years in prison. While that’s obviously an incredibly restrictive and grave sentence, many were surprised that the perpetrator of one of the bloodiest mass shootings in history didn’t receive the death penalty, and questioned the motives of the single juror who voted against it.

Aurora theater gunman sentenced to life without parole http://t.co/WVytelb7bz pic.twitter.com/Hlw4CPhCNp

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 26, 2015

On July 20, 2012, Holmes opened fire in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a showing of the “The Dark Knight Rises.” He killed 12 people and injured 70 others before being detained. In court, his lawyers claimed that he wasn’t guilty by reason of insanity, but that defense was ultimately unsuccessful, given that he had clearly put thought into his assault beforehand. He had spent months accumulating weapons and body armor, and had purchased his ticket beforehand.

In Colorado, in order for a defendant to be sentenced to the death penalty, the jurors had to vote unanimously for the death penalty. In this case, there was one juror who would not vote for that sentence, ensuring that the death penalty could not be used. Instead, Holmes was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences by the jurors–as is custom in Colorado the judge formally sentenced him today and was bound by the jury’s decision.

The fact that it was just one person who stood between Holmes and the death penalty received mixed reactions. For Judge Samour, it was an act that represented compassion in the face of the horrible evil that Holmes committed. Judge Samour stated: ““At least one juror showed the defendant the mercy that he refused the victims that day when he went into that theater.”

However for others, the fact that Holmes didn’t receive the death penalty was deeply problematic. Robert Sullivan, grandfather to six-year-old Rebecca Moser-Sullivan who was killed, and father to Ashley Moser, who was paralyzed, explained his frustrations to CNN. The sticking point appeared to be the one juror who voted against the death penalty; Sullivan called him a “stealth juror.” In order to be on a jury trying a death penalty case, you have to be willing to vote for the death penalty. A stealth juror is someone who is secretly anti-death penalty, but is still able to convince the attorneys during jury selection that they’re alright with the death penalty.

When the jury was being selected, there were concerns that a stealth juror would make it on. Legal experts voiced those concerns during the original jury selection process this winter. David Lane, a longtime Denver criminal defense attorney, told Yahoo about the difficulties of finding a stealth juror:

They are sworn to tell the truth, but a good liar can slip by. The only remedy for prevention is extensive questioning. Probing jurors about their attitudes about other things which would tend to out them as either liberal or conservative are helpful.

Whether or not the juror who voted not to give Holmes the death penalty was a true “stealth juror” or someone who genuinely thought that it was not an appropriate punishment for this case will probably never be known. However, the fact that Holmes received life sentences as opposed to the death penalty means that he, and his surviving victims, won’t be locked in years of appeals, hopefully finally bringing some closure.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was There a Stealth Juror in the James Holmes Case? appeared first on Law Street.

The jury tasked with determining the fate of Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev decided on the death penalty last Friday, May 15, 2015. The jury found Tsarnaev guilty earlier this spring. Last week, the jurors determined that for six of the 17 counts for which he was found guilty, the death penalty should apply. That being said, how long it will take for the death penalty to actually be enacted remains unknown. Given the lengthy appeals process that is sure to follow, it may be many years.

Tsarnaev, along with his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was responsible for making the bombs that went off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The bombs killed three people and injured hundreds more, and sparked a lockdown while the two perpetrators were found. While during the manhunt that followed other significant crimes were committed, including the death of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, those six counts all related to the planting of the pressure-cooker bombs.

One of the most compelling grounds for appeal would appear to be the location of the trial–it was in Boston, where the atrocious events happened in the first place. The trial moved forward in this location despite the fact that the defense attempted to have the trial moved before it even began. The defense, led by notoriously anti-death penalty attorney Judy Clarke, argued that the case should not have been tried in Boston because it would be too difficult to find an unbiased jury there–after all, the events of the bombing were seriously disruptive and traumatizing to a city where the marathon is tantamount to a holiday. But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., denied the move. That decision will most likely be one of the ones that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys asks a higher court to examine.  Another likely avenue for appeal indicated by Tsarnaev’s defense team will be that they did not have sufficient time to present an argument against the death penalty.

Besides just the particularities of Tsarnaev’s case, such as the location and the timeline, there could be other grounds for appeal, including arguments over the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Any appeal arguments will be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, also located in Boston. Depending on that decision, the case could end up being appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given that the appeals process is such a long road, Tsarnaev most likely won’t receive the sentence he’s been given–to die by lethal injection–for many years. As the Guardian summed it up:

Though the Justice Department could attempt to fast-track executions in the name of public interest, death penalty experts expect the very quickest timeframe from Friday’s sentence to Tsarnaev actually being put on a gurney and injected with lethal chemicals would be at least ten years.

So, while Friday’s decision may have seemed to have an air of finality, it’s far from over. Tsarnaev’s legal battle will probably be in the works for years to come, whether he’ll ever actually be put to death is certainly questionable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Process May Stop the Government From Executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is often considered to be one of the “necessary evils” of life. Some people are lucky enough to never get the summons, while others seem to be prime choices. But few people know what to do once they get that summons in the mail, and fewer still know about the judicial history and roles that juries play. Read on to learn about the intricacies of the American jury process.

Why do we have juries?

Though it is often maligned, serving on a jury is an important civil service that allows us to have fair trials. Many consider this act to be one of the best ways that citizens can assure that the judiciary holds up our rights and liberties. Each potential member of a jury will first receive a mailing. Any other form of contact, including phone calls and in person visits, should be considered fraud and reported.

A jury is promised to citizens of the United States in the Constitution:

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Juries are representatives from the community that make up a cross section of that community; rarely will there be two people who are alike. The goal is to be as impartial and fair as possible when trying to reach a verdict.

There are slight differences between juries in civil and criminal cases, but both are given clear instructions on what they need to decide. In a civil case, the burden of proof o the plaintiff, or the obligation to prove what one says, is much lower than the burden of proof on the prosecutor in a criminal case. The burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case the burden is “preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not, in most cases.

To serve on a jury, one must:

• Be a United States citizen.
• Be at least 18 years of age.
• Reside primarily in the judicial district for one year.
• Be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form.
• Have no disqualifying mental or physical condition.
• Not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
• Never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored).

However, some people can still avoid jury duty even if they meet the above requirements, such as members of the armed forces on active duty, police and firemen, and “public officers” of local, state, or federal governments. These people are not likely to receive a mailing from the state, but in such a case they often can just call in and report the problem. With only a few exemptions, including being physically unable to get to the courthouse, there are few other reasons that a person would be allowed to call in with an excuse–everyone else must fill out the form they received and show up on the given day.

Are there any controversies over juror eligibility? 

As our nation grows and changes, questions about who exactly can be on a jury have evolved. A recent example includes a 2013 California bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to serve on juries. California assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) did not want to change any of the other stipulations for serving on a jury, but hoped that this particular bill would reduce the amount of times one person would have to serve on a jury, and would also “help integrate immigrants into the community.” The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who said, “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Still, it helped to raise questions about who exactly should serve on a jury.

There are also concerns about the age at which one can serve on a jury–questions are raised that 18 may be too young, or on the flip side, not young enough. In George v. United States, a minor defendant who was under indictment for violation of the Selective Service Act of 1948 challenged the exclusion of minors from the grand jury. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, upholding the right to exclude minors from jury service.

What does a jury do?

Serving on a jury is a very formulaic procedure that requires a lot of “hurry up a wait” timing. Each step is meticulously thought out, but just takes time because of the sheer amount of people that they call at one time.

Here’s how the process is supposed to go: You’ll be expected to bring photo identification (driver’s license, state ID card, student ID) so that they can verify your identity and jury summons. Then you will sit and wait while everyone else checks in and things happen behind the scenes. Eventually, you may be subject to a voir dire. Voir Dire is “the second stage of jury procedures, and is the process by which the court and the attorneys narrow down the pool of juries to the 12 people that will decide the case.” How this happens largely depends on the state, the case, and even the specific judge. You may be asked questions so that the lawyers can determine who is going to be fair and able to listen to the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions. Lawyers are trained to look at every single thing you do while answering the questions; as a result, people are often released for reasons that may seem unclear.

The lawyers are looking for anything that may make the potential juror biased against the person he or she is defending. Some of those disqualifiers may be personal knowledge of the case, or prejudicial views. Others include:

• Negative pretrial publicity.
• A connection to law enforcement.
• Being a victim in a similar case.
• A past connection with someone involved in the trial.

Jurors can also be disqualified for falling asleep, illness, contact with the defendant, or bringing outside information into the court.

What problems are there in jury selection?

One of the biggest problems that comes from juries and jury selection is that “well rounded” aspect that they go for–often, it isn’t as well rounded as they had hoped. One of the biggest problems in recent memory was the grand jury in the Ferguson case: the jury was largely white, middle-class people on the older side.

According to CNS News:

The grand jury is composed of 12 people “selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens,” according to Missouri law. The jury is 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white, but about two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black. Brown was black. The officer is white.

While a grand jury is a slightly different process, this example highlights the difficulty of finding a good cross section of people to serve on an unbiased jury.

Sometimes the problem isn’t always with who is included in the jury, but who was excluded and why. The Equal Justice Initiative explains that many African American jurors are excluded from juries because lawyers sometimes think that they won’t be unbiased, explaining:

In Powers v. Ohio, 141 the United States Supreme Court held that jurors have a right not to be excluded based on their race, yet race-based exclusion continues to stigmatize growing numbers of Americans.

Serving on a Jury

If you are one of the “lucky” few, you are then sworn in by the judge. You will receive some basic notes about what you can and cannot do during the trial. Both sides will remind you not to make decisions until you have heard everything, and you will be encouraged to pay attention to every little detail. During the trial, you will not be allowed to talk to anyone about what is going on inside the courtroom; this rule includes members of your family, or reporters who might want a scoop.

After the trial starts, you may be shuffled back and forth a few times depending on what is argued. From there, you can just expect discussions and explanations from many different people. Each case is handled differently depending on the evidence and the people present. Eventually you will hear the closing arguments and move to deliberation.

The first step of the verdict is usually to select a spokesperson whose “role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict.” The jury is also free to ask questions or look closely at evidence. They then have to deliberate away from any other people. If something goes wrong, like a juror speaking to an outside party, or if a juror seems “off,” they can be removed. Deliberations may take a few hours, or they could take days. In some cases, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous decision. While in some courts having ten out of 12 people agree still serves as a valid decision, others will call it a hung jury and declare a mistrial.

However, there is another controversial choice that few people know about–jury nullification.

Jury Nullification

When many people serve on a jury, they often think that they have two options to decide upon: guilty or not guilty. However, there is a third option that few people know about–jury nullification, or the practice of saying “not guilty” in a case involving a law you feel is unjust. Basically, the jury feels that the defendant does not deserve that particular punishment for what he or she did.

This is a jury’s way of saying, “by the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty, but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.”

For a full explanation, see the video below.

 Conclusion

Some people love serving on a jury while others hate it–it all really depends on what kind of person you are; however, it is one of your duties as a citizen, and the chances of you actually serving are very low. While the juror system has evolved significantly over time, and there are still questions that routinely pop up, it stands strong as one of the tenets of the American justice system.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Courts: Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses

New York Western District Courts: Frequently Asked Questions – Jury Duty

U.S. Courts: Jury Service

Additional

American Bar Association: How Courts Work

Cornell: Sixth Amendment

FindLaw: How Are Potential Jurors Selected?

Fox News: California Bill Would Let Illegal Immigrants Serve on Juries

New American: New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

American Bar: Effective Voir Dire

Bloomberg View: Ferguson’s Grand Jury Problem

Court Listener: George v. United States

Find Law: What is the Role of a Jury in a Criminal Case

Fully Informed Jury Association: Can a Juror Be Removed?

The People’s Law Library of Maryland: What to Expect the Day You Go to Court

Lawyers: Excluding Jurors: Removing and Disqualifying

The New York Times: Jury Duty? Prepare for Rejection; Though Many Are Called, Few Ever Deliberate

Primer: Five Easy Steps For Surviving Jury Duty

The Pennsylvania Code: Conduct of Jury Trial

Truth Out: Jury Nullification: Why Every American Needs to Learn This Taboo Verdict

Wise Geek: What Happens When There’s a Hung Jury?

Flex Your Rights: Nine Arguments for Nullification Debunked

Lifehacker: Eight Myths About Jury Duty, Debunked

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Can Expect When You’re Called For Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

As someone who grew up firmly entrenched in the era of technology, interpreting what people say via plain text on a screen is almost second nature to me. Emojis, elongated words, abbreviations, as silly as it sounds, all convey their own unique meaning. So, it follows that how to deal with those unique meanings is an important question that jurors and the legal system were going to have to deal with someday. Well that day is today, as an argument over the significance of emojis and other kinds of virtual language have made their way into the much-anticipated trial of alleged Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.

Silk Road was an online site where many illicit transactions took place–particularly the sale of illegal drugs. It was a virtual black market, hidden under layers of secrecy and encryption. In November 2013, the website was shut down and Ulbricht, 29, was arrested and accused of being “Dread Pirate Roberts,” the founder of the site.

Ulbricht is now on trial, facing charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and procuring murder. That last one refers to the fact that “assassins” allegedly advertised their services on Silk Road.

His trial has taken a weird turn though. It was more common when I was younger, but every couple of years someone writes a reactionary article claiming that today’s teenagers are using emoticons and abbreviations to set up giant orgies (or whatever it is that kids do these days). These articles are usually much-ridiculed by anyone who’s ever seen a computer before, like this CNN piece from December entitled “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.” Choice abbreviations from this article included: “IWSN – I want sex now” “GNOC – Get naked on camera,” and “KPC– Keeping parents clueless.”

Well, parts of Ulbricht’s trial kind of sounds like a real life reenactment of an article warning parents about the acronyms that those darn kids nowadays are using.

pic.twitter.com/5YGWmqi0jA

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

That brings us back to the whole emoji issue too, because apparently this happened “IRL”:

He said “emoticon” literally every time there was an emoticon pic.twitter.com/deisI0nSEH

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

There was also a  particular message at issue in which a “smilie face” was used, and the prosecutor didn’t mention the smilie face after reading the message to the jury.

Essentially, the issue here is that the attorneys in this case are realizing that they can’t treat Ulbricht’s emails, chats, texts, or whatever other form of online communication like they’d treat a letter or an audio recording. The ways in which we communicate online have developed their own nuances, such as elongating certain words like “soooo” or using multiple question marks. Both of these were discussed in Ulbricht’s trial so far.

That’s why Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht’s attorney, wrote a letter to the judge asking that any forms of written communication–including emails, chats, and texts–be shown to the jury, not read aloud. He argued that the danger of different inflections, or ignoring parts of the message altogether (like just saying “emoticon”) was too high. The prosecution, obviously, disagreed.

Eventually Judge Katherine B. Forrest allowed a compromise. She allowed the chats and other text-based communications to be read into the record, but also instructed the jury to read them on their own and take note of any symbols.

This is just one part of a trial that in many ways deals with a world that has the potential to be utterly foreign to some of the jurors. Judge Forrest even recommended to both sides of the case that they develop a glossary for the terms that jurors may never have heard of, like Bitcoin, IP address, and Tor.

It’s a division in our society that is as inevitable as it is ubiquitous–knowledge of technology divides people of different ages, different social classes, and even different interests. That being said, it’s clear that the ways in which we communicate are ever-changing, and not as easy to interpret as they used to be. It’s easy to tell if someone is sarcastic from their tone when you listen to a recorded voicemail; it is not as easy when reading an email. The jurors will have to weigh these changes in technology along with the charges against Ulbricht, and moving forward, I bet we’ll see a lot more cases where the meanings of different facets of technological communication are up for debate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emojis in Court: Does a :) Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

The entire nation is still reeling from the announcement on Monday night that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted in the August 9, 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Now this has never been a simple case. Since Brown was shot, there have been protests, contentious police response to the protests, and national scrutiny. There have been conflicting statements from eyewitnesses, different forensic accounts, and I think it’s safe to say we’ll never be 100 percent sure what went down between Brown and Wilson.

People were mad when Wilson was not indicted, and understandably so. Of course, being indicted does not necessarily mean that Wilson did anything wrong. It means that the grand jury thought there was enough evidence for a jury of Wilson’s peers to decide whether or not he was guilty. They were not there to decide guilt or innocence–that’s what a jury trial itself is for. But the Ferguson grand jury did not have that evidence, so it did not make that decision.

A lot of people blamed the grand jury for not indicting Wilson, but I don’t–the jurors could only work with what was given to them. In fact, I think it’s more important to look at who gave them the evidence they would need, or lack thereof. Part of the idea of the grand jury is that it’s a testing ground for a prosecutor, but there’s also a lot of prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor gets to present his case–what he would show in court to try to convict the defendant.

Now what prosecutor Robert McCulloch did sounded good to the untrained ear. He basically gave the grand jury all the evidence. All the conflicting reports, confusing facts, and messy evidence that has marked this case from the beginning. And he didn’t much appear to advocate for the indictment of Wilson. In fact, he seemed to emphasize the evidence that showed that Wilson was acting in self defense.

One legal analyst and trial lawyer, Lisa Bloom, argues that McCulloch basically used kid gloves with Wilson through a takedown of his presentation to the grand jury. You can read the entire thing here, and believe me, it’s a good read. But here are a couple of the most damning points she makes:

McCulloch seemed flummoxed by the novelty of conflicting evidence. In 28 years I have never had a case WITHOUT conflicting evidence.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Maybe we should take up a collection to teach the Ferguson prosecutors how to cross examine an adverse witness. Step 1: ask tough questions

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

An attorney who does not aggressively cross-examine the target of an investigation is an attorney who does not want to get to the truth.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Bloom is basically arguing that McCulloch didn’t try very hard to provide a compelling case to indict Wilson, for whatever reason. And she’s not the only one. The National Bar Association made the following statement:

The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

Cops rarely get prosecuted for shooting civilians, and part of that is because of the way that the law is written. Police officers are usually given the benefit of the doubt, and understandably so–a police officer wouldn’t be able to do his or her job if they weren’t able to protect themselves. But when and if there’s an incident where the officer may have acted illegally, they should be held accountable. I don’t know what happened in Ferguson. I have my ideas and my opinions, but at the end of the day I simply do not know. But I can’t imagine that a trial in which it all gets sorted out could have been a bad thing. It was up to the prosecutor to make his case, and he didn’t. That’s why there’s no trial.

What happened in Ferguson on that August day is not an isolated incident. It’s difficult to find actual numbers, but we know that since August 9, 2014 14 other teenagers–or children even younger–have been shot by police. Between 1999 and 2011, African Americans have comprised 26 percent of those shot by police, despite the fact that only 13.2 percent of our population is black. Black male teens are 21 times more likely than their white counterparts to be killed by cops. Some of those shootings may be legally justified, but I can’t imagine that every single one is.

This is a conversation that our legal system needs to have.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson Grand Jury’s Decision Not to Indict Wilson: Was It Right? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is dreaded by many who feel as if they would prefer to be anywhere else besides performing their civic duty within the court. While many of us take this right for granted thinking of it more as a chore than an opportunity, we should stop to consider the alternative. How would you feel if you were denied the opportunity to participate in national governing, a right that is meant to be granted to all American citizens? Over the course of our nation’s history, several groups of citizens have been discriminated against with regard to jury service. In many cases, the Supreme Court has moved to fix these inequalities within our governmental system. For example, the 1896 Batson v. Kentucky case eliminated racial discrimination in jury selection and ratification of the 19th amendment eliminated discrimination of gender, giving opportunities to women to sit on a jury. In some ways, the courts have improved in their previously discriminatory practices. However, the discrimination of juror candidates based on sexual orientation has not been addressed until recently.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2014, the 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, became the first appellate court to specifically rule that a potential juror cannot be removed during jury selection because of sexual orientation. This decision will extend the 1896 ruling of Batson v. Kentucky, mentioned above, not only in prohibiting the discrimination of jurors based on race, but sexual orientation as well. The three-judge panel was unanimous in their decision, saying that not choosing a juror because he or she is gay is a form of unlawful discrimination.

The basis for this new decision stems from the 9th Circuit case, Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, an antitrust trial over the price of a popular HIV drug. This case arose from a lawsuit filed in 2007, when Abbott increased the price of the drug Norvir, used by Smithkline in their creation of AIDS drugs. During the screening of potential jurors for the case, an Abbott lawyer utilized one of his preemptory challenges to remove a possible juror who had referred to his male partner multiple times during voir dire. Pointing fingers throughout the case, Smithkline accused Abbott of removing the possible juror due to the negative publicity that accompanied the increased pricing of the AIDS drug throughout the gay community. Abbott denied this accusation, stating the reason for the removal of the juror was due to the death of his friend from AIDS.

When questioned directly, the lawyer said that he was unaware that the juror, referred to as Juror B, was gay. However, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit panel said that this claim by the Abbott lawyer was “inconsistent with the record.” The lawyer asked Juror B five questions in total throughout the prescreening process. Judge Reinhardt felt that when questioning Juror B, the lawyer “failed to question him meaningfully about his impartiality or potential biases.” Instead, the Abbott lawyer simply assumed that this potential juror would impartially evaluate the case due to his sexual orientation. In reality it was not correctly discerned whether the Juror would have actually been biased or not. Judge Reinhardt was deeply upset by the presumed discrimination of a juror based on sexual orientation, saying, “gays and lesbians have been systematically excluded from the most important institutions of self governance.”

Eventually, the jurors who were seated at the Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories case ruled in favor of Abbott. However, due to the removal of one potential juror because of his sexual orientation, the 2011 verdict was overturned and the 9th Circuit ordered a new trial, showing that this one simple removal of a juror contains many civic ramifications. Homosexuals will now have more protection within the courts, and hopefully this sphere of equality will decrease discrimination within the legal system and professional world as well.

It is our individual right to be granted a jury of our peers and many of our peers are, in fact, gay, lesbian or of different sexual orientations. It is about time that this basic civil right be extended to include not only those of different races and genders but differing sexual orientations as well.

[abajournal] [washingtonpost] [blogs.findlaw]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jarek Tuszynski via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Potential Jurors Can No Longer Be Discriminated Against Due To Sexual Orientation appeared first on Law Street.