Lisa Miller case

[Ernie]

She was Baptist at the time of the crime. Became Anabaptist at some point after leaving the USA.
https://www.eaf.net/mvp/2012/lisa-miller-in-nicaragua/

[Ken]

That wasn't an answer. Should I take your lack of answer as indication that you'd convict?

Not at all. I’ve never served on a jury. But if I ever was on a jury I would do my best not to bring my pre-conceived notions into the courtroom and simply listen to the evidence and testimony presented. Whether she is guilty or not is actually not the issue if you are on a jury. We have a presumption of innocence in this country and the prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So you aren’t actually determining guilt or innocence on a jury, you are judging whether the prosecution made their case. Since we didn’t actually have a trial I have no way of knowing whether they could or would have done so, and what the defense would have been. So absent actually holding a real trial I don’t know how I personally would have voted.

What I wouldn’t do is ignore the actual evidence presented and vote to either convict or acquit based on pre-conceived notions of the case. Someone who does that has no business being on a jury.

I think jury nullification would have been the correct outcome, had this gone to a jury, and had the jury had any moral compass. Judges "legislate" from the bench; this jury should have done likewise.

So you think she was guilty then?

Because innocent people don’t need to rely on jury nullification.

[RZehr]

Not at all. I’ve never served on a jury. But if I ever was on a jury I would do my best not to bring my pre-conceived notions into the courtroom and simply listen to the evidence and testimony presented. Whether she is guilty or not is actually not the issue if you are on a jury. We have a presumption of innocence in this country and the prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So you aren’t actually determining guilt or innocence on a jury, you are judging whether the prosecution made their case. Since we didn’t actually have a trial I have no way of knowing whether they could or would have done so, and what the defense would have been. So absent actually holding a real trial I don’t know how I personally would have voted.

What I wouldn’t do is ignore the actual evidence presented and vote to either convict or acquit based on pre-conceived notions of the case. Someone who does that has no business being on a jury.

I think jury nullification would have been the correct outcome, had this gone to a jury, and had the jury had any moral compass. Judges "legislate" from the bench; this jury should have done likewise.

So you think she was guilty then?

Because innocent people don’t need to rely on jury nullification.

Since she hasn’t been tried, I don’t know, right?

[Josh]

If you choose to serve on a jury, and more importantly choose to convict someone, the question to ask yourself is this:

On judgment day, you will stand before God, and must make an account for every thing you have done, right or wrong. When God reviews your jury service and your decision to convict, how will he judge you? There will be no excuses such as "well I was just following U.S. law". Only God's perfect law will be in effect.

It may be wise to consult with your Advocate before you make it to that judgment seat; you can learn more about him in the New Testament (and the Old as well).

[Ken]

I think jury nullification would have been the correct outcome, had this gone to a jury, and had the jury had any moral compass. Judges "legislate" from the bench; this jury should have done likewise.

So you think she was guilty then?

Because innocent people don’t need to rely on jury nullification.

Since she hasn’t been tried, I don’t know, right?

Well, she pled guilty. Was she lying when she did that?

[Ken]

If you choose to serve on a jury, and more importantly choose to convict someone, the question to ask yourself is this:

On judgment day, you will stand before God, and must make an account for every thing you have done, right or wrong. When God reviews your jury service and your decision to convict, how will he judge you? There will be no excuses such as "well I was just following U.S. law". Only God's perfect law will be in effect.

It may be wise to consult with your Advocate before you make it to that judgment seat; you can learn more about him in the New Testament (and the Old as well).

If you ever serve on a jury you must swear an oath (or affirm) that you will give a true verdict according to the law and evidence presented at trial. If you can't do that for whatever reason then you must recuse yourself.

Which is why most people here would not likely ever serve on such a jury unless they chose to perjure themselves.

[RZehr]

So you think she was guilty then?

Because innocent people don’t need to rely on jury nullification.

Since she hasn’t been tried, I don’t know, right?

Well, she pled guilty. Was she lying when she did that?

I haven’t checked every detail. She may not feel much guilt.

[Josh]

If you ever serve on a jury you must swear an oath (or affirm) that you will give a true verdict according to the law and evidence presented at trial. If you can't do that for whatever reason then you must recuse yourself.

Which is why most people here would not likely ever serve on such a jury unless they chose to perjure themselves.

You seem to be arguing some kind of "gotcha" that as a juror one would have to uphold unjust, wicked, immoral laws. I fail to see any moral or ethical case for that.

If one wants to get very technical, then cross your fingers behind your back before swearing your oath, or bring in a copy of Moby Dick instead of the Bible to swear on. Then go ahead and make the decision as a juror that you feel is just.

[Ken]

If you ever serve on a jury you must swear an oath (or affirm) that you will give a true verdict according to the law and evidence presented at trial. If you can't do that for whatever reason then you must recuse yourself.

Which is why most people here would not likely ever serve on such a jury unless they chose to perjure themselves.

You seem to be arguing some kind of "gotcha" that as a juror one would have to uphold unjust, wicked, immoral laws. I fail to see any moral or ethical case for that.

If one wants to get very technical, then cross your fingers behind your back before swearing your oath, or bring in a copy of Moby Dick instead of the Bible to swear on. Then go ahead and make the decision as a juror that you feel is just.

There's no gotcha. I was just answering Nett's question honestly. If this case had gone to trial and I had happened to have been selected to be on the jury I honestly don't know how I would have ruled or voted. I would have done by best to hear all the evidence and arguments and not bring my pre-conceived notions into the trial. And if I didn't think I was able to do that because I had already prejudged the case or disagreed with the law then I shouldn't be on the jury.

[Ernie]

I haven’t checked every detail. She may not feel much guilt.

It took a long time for her to plead guilty, as her counsel was looking at the case from every angle to see if she stood a chance at trial. In the end, she admitted "guilty" to breaking Vermont law, but that does she does not mean that she feels like she did something wrong. It was hard for her to plead guilty because of this.