Scotland set to abolish Not Proven verdict.

MACKTEXAS said:
Indeed judges do not look kindly on it, but it's a legal maneuver that a jury can exercise, over which the judge has no control.

A brief explanation:
A "perverse verdict" is synonymous with "jury nullification," where a jury disregards the law and acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty, often because they deem the law itself unjust or applied unfairly in a specific case, leading to a verdict contrary to the evidence presented. These verdicts are possible because jurors cannot be punished for their decisions, but they are controversial, as judges are not required to inform juries of their power to nullify the law."

Note, it says "judges are not required to inform juries of their power to nullify the law."

Nevertheless, juries have the authority and sometimes use it.

More information from the U.S. Department of Justice
Click to expand...
In the case I stated above, I believe the judge went ballistic over 2 things he anticipated from this juror. 1st, when he was asked why he would not follow the judge's instructions based on Constitutional Law, he responded with, "just because words are written on a piece of paper, doesn't make it correct."

Since this particular judge was a friend of my family's, I thought he'd have a seizure, then and there. I am sure he foresaw the possibility of either a jury nullification or a mistrial in the case to be heard. This was a very serious trial coming up and he wanted no problems. So, he had the Sheriffs officers haul him out of there on contempt charges.

When asked why he did not ask to be excused from jury duty in the 1st place, he said it was his duty to serve. Go figure.
 

I tell you what fascinates me always.. and I'm very used to it now, following American Court cases online and on TV.. in real life and often in real time....is that there are so many different laws betwen each state.

For example.. in Illinois, South Dakota, Maine and a few others ..a life sentence means life.. no parole......Florida is the same but has a very few exceptions

Some States don't allow LWP for anyone under 21... and many others do...

Alabama · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Florida · Georgia · Idaho · Indiana ... to name just a few all have the death penalty as an option for the courts...... whereas.. others still have it as a deterrent....

Not in any way judging... just fascinated at the various different laws within the same country....
 
Last edited:
There is no perfect system of justice. The Scottish system is an interesting issue to think about, however. A little brain teaser.
 

Lewkat said:
In the case I stated above, I believe the judge went ballistic over 2 things he anticipated from this juror. 1st, when he was asked why he would not follow the judge's instructions based on Constitutional Law, he responded with, "just because words are written on a piece of paper, doesn't make it correct."

Since this particular judge was a friend of my family's, I thought he'd have a seizure, then and there. I am sure he foresaw the possibility of either a jury nullification or a mistrial in the case to be heard. This was a very serious trial coming up and he wanted no problems. So, he had the Sheriffs officers haul him out of there on contempt charges.

When asked why he did not ask to be excused from jury duty in the 1st place, he said it was his duty to serve. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Yes, a judge can dismiss a potential or sworn-in juror for expressing defiance toward the law. The key distinction is the timing and the rationale behind the action: a judge dismisses an individual juror to ensure the jury is impartial and follows the law, while jury nullification is a collective act by a complete jury during deliberation.
 
Brookswood said:
... See the 10th amendment. It’s the forgotten amendment, until the Feds do something you really don’t like.
Click to expand...
:) I would hope so, but the Constitution by the words below has given Congress unlimited powers, hasn't it? Sure looks like it to me, a lay person.

From Section 8 of the Constitution: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ...
 
Last edited:
hollydolly said:
I tell you what fascinates me always.. and I'm very used to it now, following American Court cases online and on TV.. in real life and often in real time....is that there are so many different laws betwen each state.

For example.. in Illinois, South Dakota, Maine and a few others ..a life sentence means life.. no parole......Florida is the same but has a very few exceptions

Some States don't allow LWP for anyone under 21... and many others do...

Alabama · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Florida · Georgia · Idaho · Indiana ... to name just a few all have the death penalty as an option for the courts...... whereas.. others still have it as a deterrent....

Not in any way judging... just fascinated at the various different laws within the same country....
Click to expand...

When States were admitted to the Union, first they had to submit their State Constitution to Congress to be approved, this made each a "Separate Sovereign" permitting such, of course as long as their laws were not in Conflict with the Federal Constitution.
 
Della said:
...

I wish America would come to an agreement to end the death penalty, rather than have this variation from state-to state.

...
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to dictate law to the individual states, nor should they. The states are sovereign entities.

27 states have the death penalty (including Ohio), whereas 23 do not.
 
ChiroDoc said:
The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to dictate law to the individual states, nor should they. The states are sovereign entities. 27 states have the death penalty (including Ohio), whereas 23 do not.
Click to expand...

But in the 70's it was declared Unconstitutional by the USSC, very well could happen again. All DP cases in the Country were abrogated.
 
Oddly, during high profile cases, I personally process the events in my own head as "guilty, not guilty, and not proven." So Scotland doesn't seem that far out there, or maybe I'm just out there along with Scotland.
 
Origins in the 17th Century:
The verdict's history can be traced back to the 17th century.

  • Early Use:
    It emerged from a change in jury procedure where "special verdicts" were used, stating whether specific facts were proven or not proven.

  • 18th Century Shift:
    A landmark case in 1728, the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven, re-established the jury's right to deliver a verdict on the overall guilt or innocence of the accused, not just specific facts.

  • Different Function Today:
    By the 21st century, the "not proven" verdict's meaning and use were significantly different from its original intent, leading to its classification as a "legal idiosyncrasy".
 
A few years ago, I went to our local traffic court to debate a parking ticket. There were three possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, or Guilty with an explanation. Sounds like a joke, but it was a real plea. I suspect it was used more than the other two. I took that plea, and it worked for me. I got off with a very light fine, instead of the ridiculously heavy fine imposed by the ticket.

This may only be a plea in traffic court; fortunately, this was my one and only experience of this kind. Actually, I kind of enjoyed it, and felt vindicated. I think all the other"defendants" were there for drunk driving or similar charges. The judge took that very seriously and issued some stern lectures and stiff sentences. So the old lady fighting a parking ticket was probably comic relief for him!
 
Probably an Infraction. Although generally a Strict liability offense, there can sometimes be a rational explanation or affirmative defense.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top