I was on jury duty here, in Houston, about 2 months ago. It was a family case. There was a young mother, 20 years old whose two children were taken away from her by the state after SHE called Child Protective Services in an effort to punish her ex boyfriend, by claiming he was a child molester, who was the father of the eldest child. This girl was a screw-up, but had a close family consisting of her mother, her grandmother, her brother, and the ex boyfriend who demonstrated that he was doing everything he could for his daughter. Well, the state had taken the children away from the young mother and had given both children to the mother's mother (the grandmother) about 18 months ago. They insisted that the young mother move out of the house of her mother so that her mother could raise the two kids. This was the condition upon which the grandmother could keep the children -- that the mother not be living with her, as well.
Well, there was one incident about 18 months prior where the mother went out shopping for a day. She left the two kids with her mother (the great-grandmother). Toward the end of the day, the young mother came over to the house while her mother was out shopping, and took one of the two kids. When the grandmother got home that Saturday evening, she called CPS, who came out early on Monday morning and then took both kids away from the grandmother because she failed to keep the young mother away from the kids. So, 18 months go by while the kids are in foster care.
It was our job to decide what to do with the kids. The family was a black family, and there were two black jurors, and then ten of us white jurors. Under Texas law, family court decides outcomes with only ten jurors in consensus. All the white jurors wanted to take the kids away from the family and leave them in foster care. The two black jurors were livid, and desperately wanted the kids to stay with the family. Then there was me; and I couldn't understand why we should take the kids away from a family when only one mistake was made by a grandmother who had them in her care. So I stood with the two black jurors, leaving nine white jurors wanting to take the kids away from the family. This left us deadlocked, and ultimately, we were able to come to a consensus whereby we gave one of the children to her natural father who was also the foster guardian at the time, and a close friend of the family -- and who made it quite clear that he really loved his kid and was doing everything he could to raise her well. We left the other child with the family while giving CPS an oversight role. I don't think any one of us knew what it meant to give the state an oversight role, by making them a co-guardian, but I think we all thought that they would check up on the family from time to time. It was the only thing we could do to keep from being hung, and it seemed like the best possibility of all possible scenarios. If we had hung, then another year would have gone by with the kid growing up in foster care, and then another jury would probably have made the decision if the family could afford another trial.
So, you can make a difference, and this event left me with an observation on jury nullification: In a case where we would like to see jury nullification, it will be an almost impossible task. The lawyers will vet you out unless you just lie to them. Then there will probably be several other jurors who will tell the judge if you don't follow the written charge sent to the jury. Then you may be on the hook for perjury or contempt of court. It's too much pressure, and too much risk, it seems to me. The best thing is to just be honest and maybe you'll get through the vetting process.
Another observation that I want to make is that it's become clearer to me now, what the effect is to reduce the number of jurors required for consensus. Until a couple of years ago, family court here, in Texas, required 12 jurors to reach a consensus. If this requirement had been present in my case, then there was no chance that the state could have taken the kids from the family. With the requirement now being only 10 jurors, it's easy to see how the minority view can be ignored in cases like this.