I was called for Phoenix muni jury duty a couple years ago, shortly after I had first seen a provider. I was on the panel of 40 or so being considered, so they brought in the defendant and lawyers, and explained that the charge was prostitution. One of the questions was whether or not anyone felt prostitution should not be a crime, and if so, would you have a problem convicting the defendant anyway, since it is a crime. I didn't raise my hand, and hoped to get chosen. I planned on trying to simply poke holes in the prosecution's case, or in the end, to try to just get a couple others' to vote NG with me. I saw it as a form of civil disobediance.
What would you do if you were called on a prostitution case?
I have been called for Jury duty on December 8.
If I were called in a prostitution case, I'd give whatever answer was necessary to give in order to be chosen for the jury pool. If I made it to the jury, I'd listen objectively and hear all the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence.
I believe everyone deserves a fair trial. If they sit me on the jury for the case we've all seen this week where the girl was a minor and locked in a crate, well I'm sorry but put those two fuck ups to death. If it's a street walker or an escort, I'd still listen objectively and consider what other charges, if any are involved and again, make my decision based on the evidence. That IS our civil duty as jurors. Listen to the evidence and base our verdict on that evidence, no other.
And if it were me, I'd hope you all would do the same.
Megan
With all due respect to Megan, I'd do the same as AzLawman.
I don't think there is any moral justification to consider anyone guilty of anything if there is no harm or coersion involved.
I certainly would listen to other charges and make my decision accordingly.
Protitution should not be illegal if responsibly practiced.
If the intent is to sheild the innocent from exposure to it, create specialized zoning and cite offenders to zoning laws for loitering.
If the intent is to stop drug traffic associated with it, cite and or arrest for drugs.
Otherwise, stay the hell out of my life. I'm not hurting anyone.
I am in the middle of Megan's & dw's response. Jury Duty is one of our most important responsibilities as a member of this society. The fact that you are measuring, in a way, the actions of another can be a very difficult process. But in the bigger picture you are participating in one of the activities that keeps this democracy on course and in doing so one should take it with very serious thought and determination. In my case, my problem is that the crime itself, prostitution, should not be considered as a crime. AND, since it presently is, then, does the punishment equal the crime. I think NOT! Therein lies my personal dilema; perform my duty to society by serving on the jury and being "fair" is no problem, it's the "impartial" that would be my challenge. Prostitution, BY ITSELF, a misdemeanor or felony crime? I think not. Acquit!
Unfortunately, you are not serving on a jury to establish the law, only to determine if it as been broken. If you disagree with the law you are obligated to opt-out of the case early. A juror does not get to poke any holes in the prosecution or the defense ... only listen and decide.
Although I will not profess to have read all of the case law here; I think the concept of "jury nullification" gives juries the power to decide what is a just law - and what is not.
In the case AzLawman cites, the jury has the power to declare not guilty. Not based on the "facts" (i.e. guilt or innocence of the legislature defined law), but declaring not guilty since the "law" itself was unjust. Of course, the jury is not obligated to explain HOW they reached a verdict (as I understand things).
I'm mildly surprised that the question was posed at all (I presume by the judge or prosecutor). I'm surprised because it would seem to open the door to defense counsel to discuss jury nullification.
As for intentionally offering misleading or false statements in response to jury paneling questions, I suspect doing so is itself a crime. We all know that selecting the correct phrase or word to convey our meaning is invaluable. I've intentionally had myself tossed during jury selection by offering the truth - but phrasing my response in an inflamatory way (the defense counsel just about broke a leg he was leaping out of his chair so quickly.....).
Of course, for me to argue for Not Guilty due to an unjust law, I'd have to be selected as a juror. Maybe my response would be "Yes, but doesn't jury nullification empower a jury to do so?" I suspect it would be entertaining at the least.... 
Not a lawyer, just a dork on TER
Thanks to playmate Megan for the technically and legally correct answer. For the layperson, tha prosecutor is going to ask questions to try to find those sympathetic to the state's case. The defense attorney is searching for those that may favor the defendant. The most anyone can ask for is an open minded juror who will weigh all sides and decide on the facts and law as written.
Jury nullification, while permissible, is rare and generally occurs without discussion by the judge. Not answering a question truthfully during voir dire for the purpose of "fixing" a verdict is not only morally wrong and an affront to any attempt to do justice, but is also a felony more serious than the charge being prosecuted. In my former "life", I have both defended and prosecuted such cases. DON'T DO IT.
"Jury nullification, while permissible, is rare and generally occurs without discussion by the judge"
Given your former "life" I suspect you also know that defense attorneys are legally precluded from mentioning this - as are (I think) judges. For those not familar with this concept, I really encourage you to follow the link in my post above. Past court rulings PRECLUDE you from being informed of this by the court system - and have also upheld jury nullification as a legal POWER a jury has. This is a case of "knowing your rights". LawGguy, if you past "life" has taught you differently, I am interested in hearing about that.
That is why I thought my response would be so entertaining. Not that _I_ would be entertaining (I rarely am), but the position the court would have been placed in. Would I be charged with jury tampering (as others have been for handing out leaflets)? If so, would I be able to demand a jury trial - and the trial basically becomes a public discussion of JN? Not to mention a chance for the jury to excersise that power? How about a contempt-of-court fine! Would the court immediatly "dismiss" the jury and start over again? Or, maybe, I would just be "escorted" out (bad pun intended)
As for not answering a question truthfully, I don't think you are suggesting I was saying that. If so, please clarify.
You are correc as to the power of juries, but since the judge will not instruct you as to such a power, you will be told by the judge what law you are required to apply. Most jurors won't ignore a judges charge. On the rare occassion they do, it is generally in highly political cases (e.g., anti war draft prosecutions), and does not involve false preconceived beliefs.
Most prosecutions of jurors I have seen or researched involve provable false statements as to fairness (I have never been convicted of a crime, where the truth is otherwise)., or past experiences deliberately withheld by a juror in order to get on a jury in order to taint the verdict (think of withholding information about your membership in the KKK in order to get on a jury to convict a black defendant). And yes, if you are prosecuted you have a right to a jury trial.
