Comments on: The Future of Jury Nullification after U.S. v. Polizzi

By: “First they came for the really perverted . . .” | People v. State

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:11:39 +0000

[…] EDNY Judge Jack Weinstein’s decision in U.S. v. Polizzi: Extrapolation of the recently emphasized constitutional principle requiring a jury finding of the […]

By: Revisiting the Right of Indiana Juries to Determine the Law in Criminal Cases | People v. State

Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:18:48 +0000

[…] If David adopts the view of Rucker and Dickson to form a majority opinion in a future case, there will be one additional and essential step they must take to fully realize the rightful prerogatives of the jury: How is the jury to determine whether “returning a verdict of guilty promotes fairness and the ends of justice” if they are still kept in the dark about the sentencing consequences of a guilty verdict? […]

By: Julian Heicklen: Nutty Professor | People v. State

Julian Heicklen: Nutty Professor | People v. State — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 02:13:55 +0000

[…] judge other than the one Heicklen has been fighting with, the great Jack Weinstein, struck in his gutsy and brilliant 236-page decision in U.S. v. Polizzi a strong blow for jury […]

By: New Year’s Resolution and Retrospective | People v. State

New Year’s Resolution and Retrospective | People v. State — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 07:20:11 +0000

[…] pretty good at it. I have posted a few things of a more practical nature, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But it generally takes an actual client with an actual problem (or a […]

By: John Kindley

John Kindley — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:49:12 +0000

Agreed. We can’t expect all judges to have the boldness and integrity of Jack Weinstein, and a little judicial modesty is understandable.

By: shg

shg — Fri, 01 May 2009 09:51:34 +0000

I think you’re beginning to understand and appreciate how opinions send messages within the framework of precedent and judicial modesty. To expect the 2nd Circuit to overtly approve of nullification would be far too much. That they did not clearly disapprove, and reject the possibility, is huge, and sends the message that providing additional instruction to the jury, the only purpose of which would be to give them a rationale for nullification, will not be a basis for reversal, is clear.

We take the good news as we find it. There isn’t that much of it to go around.