I've never heard it used for homicide, which doesn't mean anything. But those trials tend to be scrutinized very closely, and they're very expensive, esp if the defendant isn't wealthy.

The biggest jury nullification situation that I know of produced the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the repeal of prohibition.

But Americans weren't so ignorant then. The people didn't like Prohibition, didn't think it was a good law, and frequently found the moonshiners not guilty. Toward the end, the courts just about couldn't get a conviction at all.

But there are things today where the same thing could happen if people weren't schooled to be so ignorant about the Constitution and law in general, and schooled to be so obedient (for some things, anyway ).

The War on Drugs is generally considered to be an expensive farce, but it's making a lot of money for a lot of people, not just the drug producers.

Prostitution doesn't really have unwilling victims unless they're under-age (which is a totally separate issue).

One of the reasons why the current search/seizure methods now in use never go to court is because the Constitution is very clear that it is strictly illegal. Also most of the pseudo-laws like the red-light camera fines will probably never go to court.

Abortion is a tricky one, too, since in reality, the matter should be strictly decided between a woman and her doctor, not involving political and religious zealots.

There are lots of things that could fall into the possibility of nullification. And the ones that do are the ones where, with current state/county economic conditions, are the ones that should be turned loose. But, of course, the ones that they're threatening to turn loose are the clearly criminal ones.

Sue

You have a nice job, I've (and I trust most other people) never had one that if I were absent from 9 to 3 and still can be done. And if I were gone for 10 weeks I probably won't need to go back to it.

Same here, jzmtl!

And we couldn't afford the loss of pay anyway. Ten weeks w/o a paycheck and I would be living in my old car under a bridge.

Sue

In my case, a lot of people were in circumstances where they could not take more than a few days off, usually because of their job situation or family circumstances. They were routinely excused.

I was called once for Federal jury service. This would have involved a daily trip of something like fifty miles. I wasn't selected, but between the pay and the per diem involved, as well as the fact that I could have taken mass transit instead of driving, all of which would not have been taxed, I would not have minded at all being selected. Situations vary.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Could you clarify? The law enforcement training I received went into exquisite detail about the types of searches that were permitted under the Fourth Amendment and subsequent case law, an area which is continually evolving. The Fourth prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches.

I learned more about the Constitution in LE than I ever did in school.

Unfortunately I am sure you can cite some instances of police misconduct, which does happen. But that doesn't appear to be what you are referring to...

I believe in civic duty, and that jury service is one of the more important ones. At the time I was in the jury pool, I couldn't have taken off two weeks from work without a SERIOUS impact on my business and my income. After not being selected for the drunken redneck case, I was selected for a criminal traffic case that took a couple of days.

In my experience, explaining that situation to the court would have excused you from lengthy service without having to concoct artful answers during voir dire. You did your duty anyway. Good!

In my county, I get called about every three years. Most of the time I just spend a day in the jury room and do not get on a jury. There are separate, semi-private areas with internet connections for those who need to do business (or log onto ETS).

The judge for the drunk redneck case explained at the beginning that nobody would be excused for any business or personal reason.

I've lived in my house for over eleven years, and I'm on all of the lists that are typically harvested for potential jurors (I'm a licensed driver, a registered voter, and I pay property taxes). I've only been called once.

You need a better court system. That judge is amazing.

One thing that enters into selection is being sure that your name is exactly the same on all those lists. If your driver's license reads John Samuel Doe and your voter registration reads John S. Doe, the computer programs we use will recognize two separate individuals, thus doubling your chances of selection.

Oddly, until I moved to my present county from Arizona, I had never been called for jury service. I was registered, owned a home, etc. for fifteen years. California must be suit-happy.

I don't know if it was an actual on-the-books law, or the name, or the number.

It started when Clinton was president, and he got the blame. But I don't know if it was a distortion of the Court-Orderless Search & Seizure Law, localized police corruption or something else. It was rampant 10-15 years ago, but I haven't heard much about it lately. Here's how it went (supposedly):

Citizen A called local police to inform them that he thought his neighbor (Citizen B) was dealing drugs, based on considerable traffic to the really nice house, the boat, multiple expensive cars, etc.

Police would search the house and grounds, find a little pot (or plant it), and then confiscated the cars, boats and bank accounts. The local police dept. got half the take and the rest went somewhere else. Citizen B was never formally charged, never went to court, was never found guilty, and never got his stuff back.

From the clippings a friend sent from CA, protesters were pointing out that these 'attacks' were never perpetrated on people/properties that had minimal value, just the ones with considerable assets that could be turned to cash.

At the time, it was being passed off as legal, where it might not have been. And there were areas of the country where it was rampant, other places it didn't seem to happen. It was happening a lot in SoCal. There was some indication later on that if the police were getting warrants, they were 'distorting the truth' (lying) to the warrant judge about what they actually knew, or how well they really knew the informant.

I know more about the high-profile case in Las Vegas in 1991, since I was there at the time:

A known prostitute was jailed after arrest for soliciting. The police took the keys to her home and entered it. A man, Charles Bush, was asleep in the bedroom, and when he came out and asked what they were doing, one of the officers put him in a choke hold. When he was released, he was dead. A reporter got to a rookie officer and asked if they often entered the homes of arrested people, and the officer said, "oh, yes, all the time".

It was front-page fodder for quite a while. Odd that none of the newspapers still have much on the incident. Tidying up the image of Las Vegas, I guess.

If this was illegal, the law knew it was illegal, and not only didn't stop it, but they assisted. And if it was illegal, that was why the victims weren't prosecuted, because any first-year attorney could take care of it.

Sue