*TAKEN FROM A FORUM POST AT SOMETHING AWFUL - I DID NOT WRITE THIS*
Criminal trials require unanimous consent except in Louisiana and Oregon where a supermajority will suffice. Both OR & LA did this to solve for people obstinently refusing to agree with the rest of the jurors. I don't agree with those laws, and I think it could be argued unconstitutional, but they've obviously not been adopted nation-wide.
What you absolutely never do as a juror is say you're seeking to nullify when they're doing jury selection. The prosecutor will likely ask you a quesiton during "voir dire" along the lines of, "What would you do if you disagreed with a law?" Your answer should be something along the lines of "I'd write a letter to my Congressperson/Senator." Yes - I'm fully aware of how much bullshit is in that answer - but they're trying to make sure you won't be a nullifier. You want to be under the radar till you're in the jury.
That being said its your civic duty to follow your conscience while in the jury room. Jury deliberations are absolutely, with no equivocations, completely secret. You're not allowed to speak about deliberations in the jury room while a decision has not been reached. You cannot face any sort of reprisal for the way you vote. Your fellow jurors cannot try to force you into switching your vote with threats or any actions considered disrespectful lest they want to find out what the judge will do (hint: judges have no respect for anyone threatening anyone in a jury room - it might be enough for a mistrial on its own if jurors start strong-arming one another).
My advice on this, for those who want to seek a jury nullification, is not to just walk into the room and say "fuck the police!" Rather, my advice is to listen and be reasonable. You're looking for a reason to convince the others in the jury to vote not guilty, not seeking to start a massive discourse on the drug war.
So say you've sat through the trial, heard the case, and the judge has dismissed you to deliberate. You have as much time as you could possibly want. A jury can deliberate for as long as it wants, though the judge may send a question if you're taking an especially long time. These questions will be like "is there an issue of law that is vague," "Do you need to see any evidence again," or perhaps even asking if there is evidence that is unclear. Lets say you can't read an affidavit or you didn't understand a part of the trial all that well - a transcript can be delivered or even audio tapes.
*gets on soapbox*
Above all - you absolutely never rush in deliberations. If I ever hear someone talking about how they were doing everything they could to rush through their jury duty, I'm not even joking, I resist every impulse to beat the shit out of them by just saying they can fuck off and I don't want to know them. I've ended friendships over it. This is a matter so central to the principle of an open judiciary that I won't budge on it - if you don't care about the life of another then I don't care about you.
*gets off soapbox*
So you've entered the jury room. The judge will have sent instructions to you which were agreed upon by prosecution and defense (these instructions are almost always 100% the same from case to case). The instructions will likely include a sort-of "How to be a Jury 101" instruction sheet (like this one -
http://www.wicourts.gov/services/ju.../deliberate.pdf). That little Jury FAQ sheet will tell you to get to know your fellow jurors.
My advice? Say something about the movie "12 Angry Men" and how being on a jury is exciting to you. This is an instance when you get to actually be involved in participatory justice - it's one of the pinnacles of human legal systems - and you've got a right to be excited about being chosen. That should tell your fellow jurors that you're excited - and don't be afraid to mention the movie "12 Angry Men" more than once. It's an incredible movie showing the importance of taking the job as juror seriously - and it might put people into a more serious mood to consider the options.
Try to attack the prosecution's case as best you can. Someone might call you on it and ask you why you're trying to prove the defendant innocent when that's the defense attorney's job. Your job as the juror is to ask but one thing - "Did the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the crime." You're attacking the prosecution's case, trying to find holes, because you have doubt about everything - a juror's job is to be doubtful of the state's claim, not to be in the state's pocket. This isn't Stalinist Russia nor is it the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It's the state's job to prove it - not your job to side with the state. Drop stuff about the USSR and China for those who keep unquestioningly backing up the prosecution - even if you're a socialist you should still doubt the state's claims and always question authority, especially if you're juror.
What you need to do is convince at least one person that the defendant's not guilty of the drug crime. That one other person is sort of like an ally ensuring you're not fighting alone. However, just like in the movie "12 Angry Men," you might walk into that room to discover it's going to be you doing all the legwork to keep someone out of prison. Welcome to citizenship - do your fucking job - or I don't want to know you. After you've spent quite a bit of time deliberating (and do spend quite a bit of time - free lunches!) you might eventually find you can't come to a unanimous decision. This is where a hung jury lies.
I, honestly, wouldn't mention nullification outright. You can just be extremely doubtful and that's that. If you feel the situation is right to mention nullification, then do so, but that's entire based on your situation so I can't speak to all the possible scenarios. At the end of the day the jury may just come back hung.
A hung jury is better than a jury declaring guilty. Why? I'll tell you.
First, a hung jury makes the prosecutor look bad - not as bad as a not-guilty - but better than a guilty. Second, it makes the defense look like they're getting somewhere and will help them in the next trial (assuming the state even presses for another trial). Third, if there is another trial, it will give the new jurors pause when they consider the evidence - what made the last group of jurors so uncertain?
Furthermore, if the state does press for another trial, you're costing the state money. For drug cases the trial is the most expensive thing the state can do. Drug charges are like traffic violations - they're revenue generation for the state - and everything you do to stymie that money makes the drug war all the more expensive. As Mario Savio said, at some point you just have to throw yourself against the machine to prevent it from working at all (see here -
) and dropping anchor in a jury room is a good way to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same guy who wrote the children's book "Go the Fuck to Sleep" (which was turned into an audiobook read by Samuel L. Jackson) also wrote this short instructional guide on jury nullification? Why? Basically because juries can acquit even if all the evidence says the law was broken. Why tell people that? So they won't convict people for drug crimes.
http://www.rmcortes.com/books/jury/Jury-Illustrated.pdfThought you might find this informational and/or enjoyable to read.
