Calling all lawyers- definition help

[RainDog]

A lawyer told me that jurors are "finder of law."

(there were two things he said...something of law and finders of law...)

so, what does this mean, legally?

If someone wanted to use this application of our jury system to examine laws in this nation and rule whether or not they were just or unjust, would this be possible?

If you want to know why I ask this question, I'll link to the original post on the issue after I post this.

What I'm wondering is this: is it possible to enter a class action suit or if not, what, to allow the American people to seek some sanity in both what the law may be and how these laws are applied.

I realize this particular issue I'm interested in has three different levels of application...at the federal, state and local levels and therefore would, it would seem, need to be adjudicated at all three levels, though it seems to me that the federal level is where it matters the most, since many states would be relieved to have this issue made sensible at the federal level.

[RainDog]

1. here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=96174

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Jurors Are Finders of FACT

The judge is the arbiter of the law.

Jurors aren't supposed to make or adjudicate law, they're supposed to be told what the law is, and then view the facts in that light to make a decision.

In a civil case, you can move for summary judgment, which is an early determination by the judge that your side of the case should win. It's generally done for open-and-shut cases, and is sometimes granted.

After the presentation of the entire case, if the facts and the law are exceedingly clear, you can ask the judge for a "directed verdict," essentially telling the jurors which way they need to rule. This is pretty rare, but on those occasions where you didn't have enough for summary judgment but then additional facts beneficial to your side were elicited at trial, it can happen.

Finally, if the jurors blatantly fail to follow the law, the judge can sometimes enter a JNOV (Judgment Nonwithstanding the Verdict) and substitute his or her own decision instead. Again, very rare, because a judge is not only usurping the jury's power, he or she is also risking being overturned on appeal.

Again, this is all for civil trials. I'm not sure how it works for criminal trials.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. To Answer the Rest of Your Question

I think what you're proposing has been tried many times before, and my dim recollection is that such lawsuits are typically dismissed for lack of "standing." In other words, there is not enough of a direct connection between the individual (or even the class of individuals) and the harm complained of, in this case the lawmakers or ultimate laws.

I think this has been tried before in the form of "taxpayer lawsuits." Again, my dim recollection is that they are heavily restricted in terms of what they allow.

It's definitely not in the established government's interests to allow us ordinary citizens a chance at having a REAL voice in our own government. Everyone just points to our representative democracy as a cure-all. Unfortunately, in these days of uncompetitive gerrymanders and special interest money corruption, that notion seems almost quaint and nostalgic, it's so outdated.

DTH

[curse10]

9. Correct

Just finished some studyin' of civil procedure :-)

[Stupdworld]

3. ooh ooh i can help

Basically, you cannot use jurors to determine if laws are fair or just. that is called "jury nullification"
lawyers sometimes use that tactic when you have certain types of defendants. like, you shouldn't find the blind elderly man liable for running over the plaintiff's dog because he's a war hero or some such.

there are questions of law - "what is the duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant?" if its a civil type case, or perhaps "has an insurance company properly retained its subrogation interest?"

and there are questions of fact - "Did the defendant cause the death of the victim?" or "Did the defendant breach the contract?"

the factual questions are usually given to juries. i couldnt tell you the origin of it. i think it goes back to our European Legal History or some such.

also it doesnt matter what level you're at, local or state. Juries try issues of fact (unless the parties agree to a bench trial)
but they never try issues of law.


and to add to the prior posts, this applies to criminal as well. juries don't find if there are 4th amendment violations, but they do get to determine whether someone was insane or not. (but note that a judge determines whether or not a defendant has sufficient evidence to raise the defense)

[AP]

4. It means that juries are presented each sides arguments about the facts...

...and they decide whether they believe them. Then, they fit them into the framewor of what they're TOLD the law is.

The law is like the formula -- it's rigid and can't be changed. The facts are the numbers, which you substitute for the X, Y and Z. They can't change the law. And they have to do what the forumla says to do wants you've plugged in the facts.

The trial court isn't the place to make law. You go to legislatures to do that. However, you can appeal (only) questions of law from the trial courts decisions to higher courts.

Appeals courts have to accept the facts the jury found (except with rare exception). Appeals courts can make decisions about whether a law conflicts with higher law (state or fed constitutions, or a ruling from a higher, or the same level appeals court).

Notwithstanding all of this, if a jury doesn't like a law, they might refuse to find a fact so that they don't have to apply the law. However, if the judge percieves this as happening, and the juge has a different opinion, the juge can order a jury to find a fact. This can happen if a witness presents a fact, and the opposite side does nothing to rebut the fact, and the witnesses's credibility isn't impeached at all.

[RainDog]

5. You've never heard that

Jurors are finders of fact and finders of law?

that's what I was told.

and I didn't know what that meant...but what I see here seems to say that's not true?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Again, Jurors Are Not Finders of Law (eom)

DTH

[RainDog]

8. So the only route for a look at the just or unjust nature of a law

Is via legislation?

I guess this brings me back to my original question, then.

If people wanted a "grassroots" look at a law and its application, then what would be the process for that?

If people wanted to put a resolution or a proposition on a ballot, that would be done via collecting signatures of eligible voters in order to put something before the people at a local or state level?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Not What I'm Saying

If you're talking about ONE SINGLE LAW, as opposed to a broad spectrum of them, then you can find various ways to stop or defeat it, especially if that law might violate various aspects of the Constitution.

Sorry, if that's what you're wondering, then I misunderstood. The ACLU, for example, files suits all the time alleging that the individual law in question is unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with juries as finders of "law" or anything, though.

As for initiatives, if you're in a state that allows them, then you're golden if you can obtain the signatures.

DTH

[AP]

11. legislatures and appeals to higher courts. Appeals courts accept the facts

found at the trial. But they can find that a law contradicts another law, or that it was misapplied.

Only legislatures can change the law.

[Justice]

14. Slight Clarification - Courts Interpret The Law

and that interpretation often changes the law (limits it/expands it).



If you want to challenge a law, you can challenge the law on its face, but also challenge the law as it is applied.

[RainDog]

16. In the case of m. laws...

there are so many obvious cases in which the law is not applied fairly, why couldn't the issue also be vetted in this way?

This is Schlosser's closing paragraph from his section on "Reefer Madness" in the book by the same name...

"A society that can punish a marijuana offender more severly than a murderer is caught in the grip of a deep psychosis. It has a bad case of reefer madness. For too long the laws regarding marijuana have been based upon racial prejudice, irrational fears, metaphors, symbolism, and political expediency. We need a marijuana policy that is calmly based on the facts. An end to the war on marijuana WILL NOT COME FROM CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT, FROM THE DEA, THE POLICE, THE PRISONS, OR THE COURTS. It WILL COME FROM CITIZEN ACTIVISM AND THE BALLOT BOX. It will come when ORDINARY PEOPLE make their views known. The government's behavior will not withstand public scrutiny for long. This war is over, if you want it." (caps mine)

Okay, so I'm an ordinary citizen and I want an end to these insane and unjust laws and I want to know what to do.

I am not part of the m. "subculture" or would I ever consider myself someone for membership in norml or anything of the sort. I'm just a person who is sick of the injustice.

[RainDog]

12. btw, I basically know how a bill becomes a law

in that someone goes to a member of the legislature in the place where that person lives and asks someone to sponsor this bill which is then taken to committee, etc. etc. and if it passes through one committee after another can go for a vote, etc etc.

as I said on my original post on this issue in politics, I do not think that would reasonably happen at the federal level, considering the make up of our current Congress.

so I'm wondering how Jo Citizen can work within the system of laws in this nation to demand and end of the hysteria and political pandering, while taking so much wasted taxpayer money and law enforcement time which could be so better spent on real issues of crime.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. That Would Be Nice

so I'm wondering how Jo Citizen can work within the system of laws in this nation to demand and end of the hysteria and political pandering, while taking so much wasted taxpayer money and law enforcement time which could be so better spent on real issues of crime.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what the established, entrenched governmental interests DON'T want you to do. And it's not easy to do this through the courts, unless Constitutional issues are implicated.

In certain rare cases, the courts can even refuse to hear a matter based on the notion that it's a "political question."

DTH

[RainDog]

15. On the other hand...

since Kucinich has come out in support of legalization of marijuana for medicinal uses, and for laws which treat m. the same as alchohol, he could be the person at the federal level who could bring such a bill forward...

...depending on the committee in which such a bill would be vetted and someone in the correct committe who would be willing to sponsor this bill.

Ron Paul, R-TX would be a natural for this also since he says he is a libertarian.

Are there other republicans who call themselves libertarians?

and of course, considering Dan Burton's personal experience with the application of this law, he would be another person who could be expected to now "see the light" of the stupid nature of our current laws...unless he wants to be on record as supporting on law for his son and another law for his neighbor's son...

[confusionisnext]

17. Attorneys for the government also have some discretion

State Attorneys General and District Attorneys can decide who they prosecute. These officials are electable, and you can pick the one who decides to put his or her office's resources where you think they should go (like domestic violence cases vs. marijuana possession).

As for the U.S. attorney general, you need to either elect a president who will appoint an attorney general sympathetic to your cause or you need to ensure that the Senate won't confirm an unsympathic one.