We previously discussed an Ohio judge who chastised a jury and threatened a defendant that his acquittal would not end the matter for her. Now Texas visiting Judge Jerry Ray has joined the ranks of judges who express their anger at juries for not ruling as they expect. Ray told a jury that it violated its oath and acted like the jury in the O.J. Simpson case.
The jurors in Tarrant County found David Tran, 17, not guilty of drunken driving despite a blood alcohol level of .095 — above the legal limit of .08. Faced with such a small level above the line, the jury had asked the judge if it could ignore the reading of the BAL device. They apparently did just that and Ray was enraged.
He first told Tran, “You got lucky. You absolutely are legally guilty of this offense.” He told the jurors:
I’ve been at this such a long time I know better than to get angry. But you just decided to ignore the law and your oath, and you know you did. The note that you sent out says, “Can we ignore the Intoxilyzer.” And you have the definitions of intoxication. And they were certainly—At least that one was very plain in this case and up on the board for you to see. And for whatever reasons, you chose to ignore that part of the evidence. And you have the right to do that. It’s called jury nullification. It’s when a jury decides to ignore the law or ignore the evidence. And they just want a certain outcome, and they maneuver until they get there. Perfect example, the O.J. Simpson trial. He clearly committed murder, and the jury didn’t want to convict him, so they found a way to—to render a not guilty verdict. So it happens. I’ve been around over 40 years in this profession, tried an awful lot of cases as a defense lawyer, as a prosecutor, and as a judge, and it happens. But this ranks among there as one of the most bizarre verdicts that I’ve seen. Thank you for your service, and you are excused.
It was an entirely inappropriate and unprofessional response from the judge. The judge was not just publicly flogging the jury for ruling for a defendant but he was making a public record that, despite his acquittal, Tran was guilty. In my view, such outbursts should be punished as a violation of judicial ethics. Here are a couple grounds under the Texas judicial Ethics code:
CANON 1
Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the JudiciaryAn independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.
CANON 3
Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and DiligentlyA. Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law.In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
. . .
(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
(6) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so. . . .
There was a judge in the same county a few years ago who was heavily criticized circumventing procedures to handle thousands of probation revocations. The judge would negotiate his own plea deals and if a defendant rejected the offer he would hear the case and, if the allegations were proven, order a more severe sentence. A “William Ray” (not Jerry Ray) was involved in that controversy in receiving over a million dollars from the judge, who he also worked for in the judge’s campaigns. It appears to be a different individual but the county seems to have a rather curious culture for judicial officers.
” Each juror takes an oath to follow the law as given to them by the judge.”
I’ve done this twice (Prince George’s County, Maryland). I don’t recall any oath like this. I remember being instructed that the jury must consider the judge’s statements about the law to be authoritative.
The oath was that we were who we said we were, had answered the questions truthfully, and could try the case without bias.
The two key features of the jury trial are a) the jury deliberates without interference or guidance; and 2) the jury is not asked for an explanation.
I think jury nullification is an essential component of freedom.
Given he is 17, isn’t the standard by which he is evaluated a limit of .00?
I thought zero tolerance was the rule of law almost everywhere on alcohol for underage drivers.
“It is not jury nullification. It is jury weighing all the evidence and not some chemical test. Maybe he spoke well when interrogated. Maybe there are photos or videos of him. Maybe the cop spoke like a liar. Maybe the cop has the same last name as the judge. Maybe the jurors know the police force is corrupt. Maybe the legal limit is too low in texas.”
It may or may not be jury nullification. In Texas, having a BAC over .08 is “intoxicated” by definition. It does not make a bit of difference if you are in complete control of your senses; you’re legally intoxicated in Texas if your BAC is over .08 and guilty of DWI. If the jury thought the defendant’s BAC was over .08 and decided to acquit him anyway for whatever reason, then that’s jury nullification (that seems to be what the judge thought happened). On the other hand, if the jury had reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the test result, then that’s not jury nullification. That’s just the jury doing their job and acquitting when the evidence does not prove the crime.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but jury nullification is perfectly legit, right?”
Not really. Each juror takes an oath to follow the law as given to them by the judge. Jury nullification is where the jury rejects the application of the law for whatever reason. So, a juror practicing juror nullification is violating his or her oath and acting contrary to the law. An attorney also would not be allowed to explicitly argue for jury nullification. However, at least in Texas, the rule is basically that jurors cannot be challenged on their verdict. So, there is no sanction for jury nullification. I still wouldn’t call it “legit” in the sense of being legal, but maybe “legit” in the sense of they system is set up to let jurors do this without sanction.
The man behind the robe curtain got pissed when the smoke a mirrors fogged over.
Juries know that one side prepares the “irrefutable” evidence (in this case the .095).
There should be an independent clinitian doing the test, not a police officer.
There were judicial canons to the left, right and center of this idjit. He needs to be removed from office and any attorney with a jury trial should move to recuse him. Or excuse him. Or remove him. Or disqualify him. But, hereafter, for a lawyer to allow his client to be tried in that court is grounds for disbarment of the lawyer. “Come on JoeBob, lets go try our case in front of Attila The Hun.” At Nuremberg the United States, when it was The Exceptional Nation after WWII, prosecuted a number of Judges for this type of conduct in The Judges Trial. Please Google that phrase and see the story. The movie on it is not accurate, but the movie is very interesting. Judgment At Nuremberg is the name.
Dan,
Some of this people in govt fail to realize they are just a few step from jail themselves. I’m not sure what’s up with the judge in question, but there remains the question of should he be removed for cause. At 1st glance I believe there is cause investigate further.
Those in power either get in front of the crowd to get rid of govt/corporate corruption or fall themselves under the crowd’s feet because this current situation can not continue.
BTW .08 is half of what used to be legal & both that there was no direct prohibition except under other constitutional laws. ie: wreck-less endangerment, etc…
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nullification+the+rightful+remedy&sm=1
It is not jury nullification. It is jury weighing all the evidence and not some chemical test. Maybe he spoke well when interrogated. Maybe there are photos or videos of him. Maybe the cop spoke like a liar. Maybe the cop has the same last name as the judge. Maybe the jurors know the police force is corrupt. Maybe the legal limit is too low in texas. Maybe the judge should be removed from the bench. Maybe the judge should be strung up.
Please follow up should information become available on why the jury ruled as it did.
There are many people who have been persecuted by overzealous judges and prosecutors because of tiny technical violations. And not just violations of a law that distinguishes between .08 and .095, but laws that are also unjust or used as entrapment. (The accuracy and thus validity of the breathalyzer has been in question for years.) That is why jury nullification is the way to resolve those kinds of issues. The authoritarians amongst us, of course, disagree with that.
And also, Lew Rockwell’s article, Legalize Drunk Driving, makes some interesting points. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html
Correct me if I am wrong, but jury nullification is perfectly legit, right?
No jury should take a narrow, legalistic view to justice. They don’t have the training or experience for that. The jury decides something ore important: right or wrong.
JT: “It’s called jury nullification. It’s when a jury decides to ignore the law or ignore the evidence. And they just want a certain outcome, and they maneuver until they get there.
Oh, I see. The Prosecution NEVER does this, right? >crickets chirping in the night<
This is not that uncommon in Texas since we are a one party state for all practical purposes. Judges here are notorious for being biased and ignoring law. We even had one judge in a death penalty case, collude with the DA every day before court to convict a man. This was uncovered by the appeals attorney who asked the judges clerk under oath what the judge did before court. She told the truth, was fired, and the judge remained on the bench. Brantley got a fair trial in Galveston, was acquitted, and the defense established who the real killer was. The DA did not go after the real killer and he is still free, but at least the DA was not elected again.
I doubt that anything will be done to enforce the judicial canon in Texas. The rule is if you are Republican, you are right no matter what.
Dog help the Criminal Lawyers – you just CAN’T be letting the truth be known*!*
Anyone who has worked litigation for a long time has seen judges exasperated w/ juries. The body language, sighs, etc. are all just part of being human. That is where it should stop.
A one-man Star Chamber, justifying exactly why we must preserve, at any cost,the “jury of peers” system. Given Texas’ outrageous track record for convicting — even executing — innocent victims, including outrageous abuse of families and children at the YFZ ranch, juries are growing contemptuous towards a stacked judicial system and, especially, judges liked this one.
One of the many reasons SWM was happy to leave the Dallas metro area.
Would like to know the circumstances of why the jury did what they did. They must have had some reason to rule that way.
Good for the jury – they voted the way they wanted to.
Its their right.