A Stitch in Haste

Question for the nullifiers: At least one state forbids the use of the so-called "gay panic defense." Should a nullifier be entitled to disregard that prohibition and vote to acquit a gay-basher in defiance of both the law and the jury instructions?

By the way, this is not entirely a hypothetical:

Students have said they witnessed confrontations between [Lawrence] King and [Brandon] McInerney in the weeks or days before the shooting, including King's teasing McInerney and telling him that he liked him.

McInerney perceived King's treatment as harassment, [Public Defender William] Quest said. ... Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality — King — and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn't a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.

Besides the fact that King was in fact not cross-dressing at school, there are many aspects of this tragedy that make it a poor fact pattern for analyzing any one particular legal issue. Point conceded.

But having said that:

A.B. 1160 declares that it is against public policy for a defendant to play upon the bias of the jury, or for a jury to allow bias against the victim to enter into its decision-making.

The bill revises the current California jury instruction regarding bias, to make clear to jurors that their verdict cannot be based on bias against the victim, defendant or witnesses.
...
A.B. 1160 was introduced in response to recent cases in California in which murder defendants have tried to lessen the charges against them by arguing that they acted in a panic after discovering that the victim was gay or transgender.

So I put it again to the nullifiers: Assume a juror, who acted in good faith and made no attempt to lie her way onto the jury, simply believes that "panic" is indeed an entirely proper reaction when "harassed" by a "pervert" and that, A.B. 1160 and jury instructions notwithstanding, it's just not right for someone to go to jail for killing an uppity queer who "panicked" him.

If the power of a juror is absolute and extends not just to reviewing the facts but also the law, then is it not also perfectly appropriate, even noble, for one homophobe to acquit another homophobe?

Or do your "higher principles" regarding nullification only apply to smoking pot?

(Via Box Turtle Bulletin. no third solution offers a reply.)

---

Previous Lawrence King posts starting here. Another ongoing gay panic trial here.