Trial and Error
Jury nullification is the phenomenon that occurs when a jury decides contrary to any and all evidence supporting the facts of the case, that their personal bias will determine the verdict.
The most notorious examples of jury nullification occurred in the South in the 1960s when members of the KKK were exonerated in several cases in which black men had been murdered and where it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that those indicted had actually done the dirty deed.
It also occurred in the O.J. Simpson case. **
The following case, involving flagrant animal sodomy and which could have easily applied to my “just sexual” patient as well as to the notorious Hampton’s Duck Fucker clearly illustrates the point:
The CEO of a major American corporation was observed by a State Trooper to be sodomizing a sheep in an open grassy meadow. After his arrest, the CEO was interviewed at one of the most prestigious law firms available in his home city. He was told he could either be assigned the best trial attorney in the country, or the quintessentially best jury selection attorney, but could not have both. After some slight consideration, the CEO decided to go with the jury selection expert.
On the day of the trial the prosecuting attorney opened his remarks by stating:
- Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man accused of sodomy is not only without a shadow of a doubt guilty, and should serve the maximum penalty allowed by law, but in addition to that he is a man who is sexually depraved beyond belief. Not only did he sodomize a sheep, in plain view for all to see, including women, mothers and children; but in addition to that severely depraved act, he added insult to injury, when after he was done, he made that sheep turn around and lick his balls.
At which point the Jury Foreman turned to the juror on his immediate left and whispered quietly:
- A good sheep will do that, you know.
**The jury forewoman at the O.J. Simpson trial stated after the fact that on the first day of the trial all 12 jurors had already determined to find him “not guilty.” They privately judged the trial to be a miscarriage of justice and the White establishment’s attempt to unjustifiably lynch a Black man. The fact that he had snubbed his own race and married a white woman did not seem to enter the thought process.
The fact that he hob-knobbed with the Hollywood jet set and never set foot in the ghetto or ever gave his black brothers the time of day also did not seem to enter the equation. The trial took over one year and cost several million dollars of taxpayer money.
The jury forewoman then became irate when she was not invited to the celebration party after the acquittal. She thought that during the trial she and O.J had somehow bonded. I guess the joke was on her.
|Sheep photo @||http://www.pdatoday.com|