It’s #STFUfriday!

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

It’s #STFUfriday!

When cops ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and then STFU:

- I am not discussing how I’m doing or where I’m going.

- Am I free to leave?

- I am not answering any questions.

- If they ask to search anything: "I do not consent to a search."

- I want to speak to a lawyer.

Let’s talk about sandwiches and jurors. Do jurors have to talk about what they did? /🧵

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

Jurors acquitted Sean Dunn of assaulting ICE agents with a sandwich. It sure looked like, under the letter of the law, he was guilty. He threw a sandwich. It hit the guy.

But applying that law here was stupid and unjust. So jurors probably did what’s called “jury nullification.” Jurors are the absolute judges of the facts under US law. So if they think the facts don’t justify a conviction, they can vote not guilty and no one can do anything about it. /2

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

If you’re being picked for a jury, you will be told you have to follow the law. That’s true. You have to follow the judge’s instructions. And you can’t lie about it. Don’t do that.

But no one can tell if you did follow the law or if you acquitted because the law was unjust. Why? Because jurors don’t have to tell anyone how they decided the case. More importantly, judges and lawyers are *forbidden* from asking jurors how they decided a case. /3

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

And testimony about how jurors decided a case is normally inadmissible as evidence.

There are really only two exceptions to this rule. Jurors can be asked if, in convicting, they considered (1) things that were not evidence at trial - “extraneous” influences - like google searches or talking to friends about the case, or (2) racism. /4
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-606

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

But when jurors acquit, the case is over and jurors answer to no one. That’s the good old U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Jury nullification has been used for evil (racist jurors acquitting racists) and for good (e.g., acquitting peace activists). But it will remain part of the US system because of the unique role of jurors.

Let’s say you sat on a jury that convicted someone, though. /5

[d_j_nathanson@esq.social]

In Massachusetts and most US states, you are *allowed* to say anything you want about deliberations after the trial is over. And anyone (reporters, friends) can ask you about deliberations, you just don’t have to answer.

But judges and lawyers may not ask you about deliberations except for extraneous influences and racism. In Massachusetts, you aren’t *required* to answer even those questions unless you’re called back into court. /6