To view this email online, paste this link into your browser:
[link removed]





Three Link Thursday!

Dear John,

I want to share with you three quick links I think might be of interest to you this week.

1

Jurors don’t know what the penalties for a guilty verdict will be. They should. ([link removed])

The above linked op-ed in the Washington Post by two law professors not only speaks favorably about jury nullification, but also advocates that jurors be informed about the potential penalty at stake so they might consider that and whether or not to nullify before delivering their verdict. There's also also an embedded link in the article to the FIJA website!

Normally, the Washington Post requires you be a subscriber to view content like this, but today I discovered a feature of FIJA's subscription that allows me to "gift" up to 10 articles per month. I am not 100% sure, but I think the above link will allow anyone who has it to the article as many times as you like within the next 13 days (two weeks from yesterday, when I activated it). Please let me know if you are or are not able to access it in that timeframe so I know for future reference.

2

Is this a case of grand jury nullification? ([link removed])

One of the challenges in this field is that due to things like grand jury secrecy rules or trial jurors not publicly discussing their thought processes after they make decisions, we often do not know whether something is or is not a case of jury nullification. Therefore, I tend to think of the various cases I have come across over the years in different "buckets": definite, probable, and possible jury nullification cases and things that are likely or definitely NOT cases of jury nullification.

The above linked article is about a case that doesn't fit the "poster" scenario that most often comes to mind when we think of jury nullification—it is most definitely NOT a victimless offense. Rather, this is a case where the jury may have believed that unusual mitigating circumstances warranted them not strictly enforcing a law that usually jurors would want to enforce.

Between this article, a GoFundMe page for the accused, and several other articles about the case, it appears that the accused, a then 15-year-old boy, shot his father in the head after both he and his mother had been repeat victims of his father's abuse over the course of nearly a decade. The boy admitted to police that he shot his father, and not a single one of the many articles I have found so far mentions anything about this being a case of self-defense. That seems consistent with the fact that the government was intending to prosecute him for murder and try him as an adult. Also, more than one source I've browsed indicates extreme sympathy toward the boy from his community.

Which of the previously mentioned "buckets" do you think this case likely fits in? Based on what I've read so far, I'm leaning toward classifying this as a probable or possible instance of grand jury nullification, but I'm still reading up on the case.

3

"Justice" without Juries: Hong Kong ([link removed])

In this latest episode of FIJA's Behind Closed Doors podcast, FIJA Vice Chairman Robert Anthony Peters and I discuss the bleak prospects for justice for those who have been recently arrested in Hong Kong—including several organizers of Tiananmen Square Massacre remembrances, journalists, entrepreneurs, and more—now that China has cancelled Hong Kong's right to trial by jury and other due process rights. 

We compare the situation in Hong Kong to the United States today where our jury system is looking more grim than it has in my entire life during the pandemic. State and federal courts here have canceled trials by jury for 12-16 months with massive backlogs piling up and little to no relief for those incarcerated pretrial.

That the world just witnessed the complete dismantling of Hong Kong's jury system over just a few months ought to underscore for us how crucial it is that we not let our own right to trial by jury be done away with by our own government here in the United States. 

For Liberty, Justice, and Peace in Our Lifetimes,

Executive Director
Fully Informed Jury Association

P.S. I have recently had so many links piling up that I'm thinking of making Three Link Thursday a weekly email. Items I look forward to sharing with you in the coming weeks include:

a detailed article on Arizona's recent changes regarding peremptory challenges and what they mean for fully informed jurors not only in Arizona but nationwide, 

a talk I will be giving this Saturday regarding why traditional jury nullification legislation has historically been unsuccessful and what types of legislative proposals could be more successful an still boost fully informed juries,

news on Professor Michael Huemer's latest book Justice before the Law, which covers jury nullification extensively, and a FIJA book discussion group on it,

an upcoming talk on jury rights by FIJA board member and Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Economics at New York University Nathan Goodman for a law and economics class at West Virginia University, 

and more!

We are so grateful to all of you who have donated to support these and other educational outreach programs to create more fully informed jurors! THANK YOU!

Your financial contributions make all these things and more possible. If you would like to help FIJA reach our current fundraising goal to continue this critical work, you can make a donation on our website or get the address to mail in your donation by clicking this button:

Donate Now ([link removed])





P.O. Box 5570 | Helena, MT 59858 US

This email was sent to [email protected].
To ensure that you continue receiving our emails,
please add us to your address book or safe list.

manage your preferences ([link removed])
opt out ([link removed]) using TrueRemove(r).

Got this as a forward? Sign up ([link removed]) to receive our future emails.