guilty based on the jury instructions which lack a certain mental state. But it doesn't reflect a guilty mind (which is concerning). However, lack of knowledge isn't enough to be found not guilty (which is concerning).
The elements are determined by the statute: was Calvin in possession of a weapon without registration on his person? I would vote guilty. He can seek relief through other means (perhaps constitutional challenges to the statute), but the rule of law demands that the jury faithfully fulfill its mission as an accurate fact finder.
Not Guilty. Jury Nullification would work perfectly for this situation as the law is simply unjust. The kid is merely hunting and it is unlikely that he knew about the law or could be expected to know about the law.
Technically the case meets the elements given to us, but the statute does not include a scienter element. According to US v. Balint (1922), a guilty mind is a necessary element in a criminal charge even if not explicit in the statute
I'd vote not guilty.I think jury nullification is a powerful check on prosecutorial discretion. I see that it can be abused but I think overall the jury should be able to read in a justice element to "guilty"
I don't know if my perspective has changed a whole lot regarding jury nullification. There are times where it seems like it would be good, and there are times where it seems like it would be quite problematic. If it's something that we want more frequently in the system, you just have to accept that there are going to times where it frustrates you.
I was pretty sure guilty was the way to go, but the argument about prosecutorial discrétion might persuade me the other way. I still worry about allowing juries to pick and choose who the law applies to, especially as a largely white pool
I agree that if juries have the right to nullify verdicts then they should be informed of that right - seems silly to give it to them otherwise. But I question whether juries should have that right in the first place. I'm ambivalent about their role in the system generally.
Still not guilty. My position that jury nullification is a necessary part of the criminal jury trial system stands. I have played a significant role in putting more than 5 people in prison at trial. Having been a part of wielding that immense power makes clear to me how necessary jury nullification is.
I would likely still vote guilty, but I'm not necessarily opposed to jury nullification in all circumstances. The individual did not own a firearm permit. The jury is indeed a sovereign body, but likely should not diverge from the law simply because it is not convinced of the law's justice. It needs to be an exceptionally unjust situation.
Still not guilty, though I see more legitimacy concerns with nullificaiton. Jury nullification points to the republican (small r) and democratic (small d) tensions in a country as big as ours. If the idea of jury nullification is that it prevents members of a society from enforcing what they consider to be an unjust law, you do end up with situations like the post-Reconstruction South, where lynching was unfortunately widespread. It seems like society was not interested in convicting these white men; the lack of conviction had local democratic legitimacy, maybe, but the South was an anomalous region within the country, which otherwise viewed the actions as heinous. In a large democracy, what is the right lever for enforcing social norms and beliefs? Should it be the rigid enforcement of jury behavior across geographies? Should it be politics and the electoral process? Or, should democracy be suspended in those regions while national priorities are enforced by the bayonet/police?