I personally favor the verdict to acquit Leroy Reed because I believe that even though he broke the law, he should not be charged with the crime of possessing a gun. The most convincing evidence was the expert witness who stated that Reed had a 2nd grade level of intelligence. When Leroy Reed was testifying, he was asked if he was a convicted, and he answered no. He was then prompted to answer yes to seeing a parole officer. Reed was then asked again if he was a convicted felon and he said yes. Reed gave conflicting answers on being a convicted felon during his testimony, which shows his mental capabilities. EXPAND. Another piece of convincing evidence was after Reed showed the sheriff the sales receipt of the gun as a form of identification, Reed voluntarily turned the gun in. Reed knew he had the gun, but he willing turned it in. I believe Reed should not be convicted for willing turning in his gun when requested by the ...view middle of the document...
The three conditions of being a convicted felon, being in possession of a gun, and knowing he had the gun were met by Leroy Reed. I would respond to this by saying that even though he knew he had the gun by going home and returning it to the sheriff, he did not know fully understand the rules of being a convicted felon and that he was not allowed to own it due to his limited mental capacity.
The proper roles of the jury is to gather all the facts and evidence, apply the law to facts, and serve as a buffer between the defendant and state by reflecting the community’s values of what is justice.
The pros of the jury doing justice by nullifying are that the jury is able to reflect community’s values and beliefs of what is justice, there are no penalties for nullifying, the verdict of the case could lead to the law being altered or overturned, and the jury make verdicts on a case by case basis instead of convicting the defendant just on the crime they committed.
The cons of the jury nullifying are that the verdicts vary by case because they make verdicts on a case by case basis, bias from sympathy is likely to occur, others in the community may not agree with jury’s view of justice, and the jury is more likely to speculate about the law or defendant, which could be wrong.
The pros of the jury never nullifying are that there are consistent rulings in cases because the jury only uses the facts, and it is less likely for the jury to be biased and make speculations about the case.
The cons of the jury never nullifying are that the jury has power to nullify, juries will become useless because they will no longer be a buffer between the defendant and state, laws would be harder to overturn because juries would always agree with them and the community beliefs of justice would be ignored, and juries would not make verdicts on a case by case basis and the verdict would solely be based on the crime the defendant committed.
Based on the pros and cons of the jury nullifying and never nullifying, the jury should have the power to nullify because the BENEFITS outweigh the cons of nullifying and the pros of never nullifying. EXPAND