Welcome to New World Man, a Library of Congress Web Resource on the Alito nomination, and home of Harriet Miers' con law crash course. The author is a reformed lawyer who enjoys reading blawgs and writing about legal issues and in particular the Cons...

Julian Sanchez had a problem: A committed opponent of the drug war is called for jury duty, and is asked if he has feelings about the drug laws "that might prevent you from objectively applying the law to the facts of the case?" I say my moral views ...

Possibly so, in which case, all apologies to Whatever.

But please recall, I live in Mississippi, and I hear arguments just like that advanced in all seriousness. I heard the "first-time offender" bit a few weeks ago, from a member of the state parole board. So maybe it's the calibration, not the batteries.

We had on that jury a person who would gladly self describe themselves as a liberal. After the jury deliberation, he remarked that he really thought insurance companies were evil and had planned on making sure the insurance company was placed on the hook for a large sum, even if it meant he had to deadlock the jury. Now this was despite the fact that he had been questioned, along with all of us, if he had any predispositions towards either the defendant or the plaintiff. In short, he did, he lied (though to the best of my knowledge no kids died) and when he heard the girls story he couldn't follow through. Maybe it was her changing story while on the witness stand, maybe it was her having gone to the ER over 100 times in the year prior to her catching the flu, maybe it was her inability to recognize the word 'hypochondria' that was on the doctors evaluation of her flu symptoms. In any case, he joined the rest of the jury in finding that the insurance company had no liabilities what so ever. He did not join the call by some of his fellow jurors who asked the judge if the plaintiff would be charged with perjury as they jury clearly felt perjury had been committed.

To say that I like some outcome in general and thus it is permissible for me to act against the law to potentially achieve a verdict in support of a position is wrong. If it became common, then an important part of justice would be lost. If you can not keep an open mind, listen to the facts of the case and then vote, you do not belong on a jury.

We have a name for courts that are conducted where the sentence is known before the hearing of the facts.They are called Kangaroo courts. And they are not considered a good thing.

I was taught (perhaps incorrectly) that as a citizen I had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that
1) The accused did the deed AND
2) The deed was a crime at the time of the act AND
3) The doing of the deed was a criminal act.

Usually jury nullification is considered to be related to the third item above, although in the case of "law objectors", I can see how it could be the second.

Stalin relied heavily on people like you, Whatever.

I could be wrong Anderson, but I suspect your sarcasm detector may need new batteries. ;-)

Stalin relied heavily on people like you, Whatever.

So since so many people are willing to lie under oath during jury selection, I guess I will too.