| | This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is
| Eyes Wide Open
User ID: 132477
8/20/2006 8:42 PM
Report abusive post | This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is
| Quote |
This Could Save Your Life ! Jury Nullification Why you should know what
it is
(Read it, Pass It On & Save it)
( This is true, To put it in one sentence, If a jury believes a law you
are on trial for breaking is unfair they can find you not guilty even if
there is proof you violated the law. Judges rarely instruct the jury of
this right and many also will not let the defence attorney do so )
By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the
verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why
do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that
you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives
of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job
is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury,
beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and
responsibilities.
But judges rarely "fully
inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law
itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they
end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who
will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also
admits having qualms with any specific law.
In fact, if
you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and
obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually
broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about
the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
It was
normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of
their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't
tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders
understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of
their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role
as the servant, not the master, of the people.
It was our Constitution that
gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The
Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ
representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains
the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each
constitutionally guaranteed authority.
"Jury nullification of law", as it is
sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the
Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of
the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular
authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that
each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before
it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written
law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles
of its constitution."
Four decades before Jefferson spoke these
words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by
finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been
arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories
about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court
told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.
Why? Because defense attorney Andrew
Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of
William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to
find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an
illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held
without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were
fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until
England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and
fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of
that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free
speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual
rights.
American colonial juries regularly
thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated
by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won
or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American
Revolution! Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights
they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of
these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning
tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation
which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But
our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more
than ever, we need juries to protect us!
Even though it was once the written
law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return
him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture
and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!"
But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too
that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by
our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote
if on that trial's jury?
"If a juror accepts as the law that which
the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute
authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right
that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots
Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267) Despite the
courts' refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury
nullification in liquor law trials was a major contributing factor in
ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky jurors often refuse to
convict under the marijuana prohibition laws.)
Fewer incidence of jury veto actions
occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors'
rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may
consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966
found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time
between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury
exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is
officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in
criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you
concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as
jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be
governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as
stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell
the jury of their veto power.
To better
explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not
forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully
Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national
jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws
to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth"
about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA
believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the
citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and
routinely put it to good use.
About 18 months ago, armed
with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in
having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the
Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with
courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's
courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general
our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens
about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's
role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury
tampering.
We can only speculate on why there
is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to
decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving
legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the
people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the
rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming
the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors
might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair
trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?
If jurors were supposed to judge "only the
facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because
people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that
we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.
Why is so little known about
what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of
powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today)
inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury
rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify"
or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held
that jurors need not be told about these rights!
However, jury veto power is still
recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the
trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The
pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example,
acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)
Today thousands of harmless citizens are
in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and
the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More
prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects
no one but themselves. We need to be wary and/or critical of any
proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or
regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by
which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow
a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote.
To find out more about jury
nullification and FIJA call 800-TEL-JURY and record your name and
address. Or call FIJA National at
(406) 793-5550.
Copyright Mendocino College Eagle 1995
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited
The Sheeple Pit..... Don't Fall In......:)
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
[link to www.thecrowhouse.com]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
[link to eyeswideopen111.stumbleupon.com]
"For what are fifty, what a thousand slaves, match'd to the sinew of a single arm that
strikes for Liberty?"
A Nation Of Sheep Soon Begets A Government Of Wolves
[link to i111.photobucket.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 133412
8/20/2006 8:48 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
Thats all well and good but the convicted party sits in jails while the rich money grabbing lawyers spend every last fuking cent of your money and possessions working to get you an appeal |
| Eyes Wide Open
User ID: 132477
8/20/2006 8:49 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
[link to www.fija.org]
If You Are Called For Jury Service
Don't worry! Be happy! Look at jury service as an opportunity to "do good" for yourself and others. It's your chance to help the justice system deliver justice, which is absolutely essential to a free society.
Also, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in practically any other way as a citizen: your vote on the verdict is also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an opinion which our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected to office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful impact on the rules we live by than you will as a trial juror.
However, unless you are fully informed of your powers as a juror, you may be manipulated by the less powerful players in the courtroom into delivering the verdict they want, instead of what justice would require. That is why this was written--to give you information that you're not likely to receive from the attorneys, or even from the judge.
Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as advice.
Understanding the full context in which an illegal act was committed is essential to deciding whether the defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what about justice? If the jurors agree that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged, then "context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you can live with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go to you, so be sure to ask the judge how you can pose questions to witnesses, so that you can learn the complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it out.
When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience.
Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything, then vote "not guilty" on all counts.
You can't be punished for voting according to your conscience. Judges (and other jurors) often pressure hold-out jurors into abandoning their true feelings and voting with the majority "...to avoid the expense of a hung jury and mistrial". But you don't have to give in. Why? Because...
Hung juries are "OKAY". If voting your conscience should lead to a hung jury, not to worry, you're doing the responsible thing. There is no requirement that you must reach a verdict. And the jury you hang may be significant as one of a series of hung juries sending messages to the legislature that the law you're working with has problems, and it's time for a change. If you want to reach consensus, however, one possible way is to remind your fellow jurors that...
Jurors have the power to reduce charges against the defendant, provided that "lesser included offenses" exist in law (ask the judge to list and explain them, and the range of potential punishments that go with each). Finding guilt at a lower level than charged can be appropriate in cases where the defendant has indeed victimized someone, but not so seriously as the original charges would indicate. And, if it will be up to the judge to decide the sentence, it's within the power of the jury to find the defendant guilty of a reduced charge which will, at most, entail the amount of punishment it thinks is appropriate.
The Jury Power Page hopes the above information helps you to find a verdict that you believe is conscientious and just, a verdict which you can therefore be proud to discuss with friends, family, legal professionals, the community or the media, should any of them want to know what happened, how, and why.
Posted by: FIJA
Posted on: 2006-03-06 22:44:32
The Sheeple Pit..... Don't Fall In......:)
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
[link to www.thecrowhouse.com]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
[link to eyeswideopen111.stumbleupon.com]
"For what are fifty, what a thousand slaves, match'd to the sinew of a single arm that
strikes for Liberty?"
A Nation Of Sheep Soon Begets A Government Of Wolves
[link to i111.photobucket.com] |
| Michele
User ID: 133675
8/20/2006 9:15 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
Good post! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76936
8/20/2006 9:37 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
This is very important information, Eyes! Thanks for posting it. Everyone should know it. |
| Eyes Wide Open
User ID: 132477
8/20/2006 9:54 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
Thank you for this article on The Fully Informed Jury Association. For more information you may visit our website [link to www.fija.org.] Our office telephone number is 406-442-7800.
We have just put out some brochures on our Second Amendment rights which every gun owner should have.
We have a wonderful executive director named Iloilo Jones, and I am on the Board and planning to go to Montana for our convention next month.
I live in Alabama and would be glad to speak to groups about our rights as jurors.
America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. If people knew their rights as jurors, we could reduce the prison population.
Margi Crook
Tel: 256-568-5814
The Sheeple Pit..... Don't Fall In......:)
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
[link to www.thecrowhouse.com]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
[link to eyeswideopen111.stumbleupon.com]
"For what are fifty, what a thousand slaves, match'd to the sinew of a single arm that
strikes for Liberty?"
A Nation Of Sheep Soon Begets A Government Of Wolves
[link to i111.photobucket.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 133429
8/20/2006 10:01 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
How timely.
I have jury duty this week. I'll keep this in mind.
Thank you |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 91487
8/20/2006 10:29 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
We're screwed. Most of the assholes that I work with look forward to jury duty as a chance to hang someone. I'm not lying. I try to tell them they have the obligation to try the law also, and to save a citizen from the overstepping laws and fanatical prosecuting attorney, and they just look at me funny.
None of them seem to realize that what goes around comes around. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 91487
8/20/2006 10:40 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything, then vote "not guilty" on all counts.
If you are arrested for a single offense, they charge you with every aspect of it they can. In this state, they run a mill. I am positive that some people please guilty to some lesser charges (even if possibly innocent) and accept a short jail sentence and probation rather than face a jury who might convict them of the whole enchilada and put them in jail for 10 years for a small offense. The lawyers realize this. You pay 5,000 to 10000 for representation, they put maybe an hour of their time on your case, and usually suggest that you take an offer from the prosecutor rather than go to trial.
The danger of going to trial is that some/lots of jurors figure that if you are on trial, you must be guilty.
I am sure that there is a special place in hell for lawyers, judges and cops.
We really are fucked.
The Ramseys did the best possible thing. They refused to talk to the cops. The cops usually make their case from what you say. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129120
8/20/2006 10:42 PM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
They do multiply charges...Michael jackson is a good case in point. Astonishing really that the jury let him off, but they did a good job IMO. |
| the Questeon ?
User ID: 7308
8/21/2006 7:25 AM
 | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
vip bump 5 stars for you
Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
From page 405 of Rockefeller's 2002 book Memoirs.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is
still a vote for evil
Ron Paul 2008!
Quayle shows email me: puppystaygo@sogetthis.com |
| mercury2
User ID: 133900
8/21/2006 11:46 AM | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything, then vote "not guilty" on all counts.
If you are arrested for a single offense, they charge you with every aspect of it they can. In this state, they run a mill. I am positive that some people please guilty to some lesser charges (even if possibly innocent) and accept a short jail sentence and probation rather than face a jury who might convict them of the whole enchilada and put them in jail for 10 years for a small offense. The lawyers realize this. You pay 5,000 to 10000 for representation, they put maybe an hour of their time on your case, and usually suggest that you take an offer from the prosecutor rather than go to trial.
The danger of going to trial is that some/lots of jurors figure that if you are on trial, you must be guilty.
I am sure that there is a special place in hell for lawyers, judges and cops.
We really are fucked.
The Ramseys did the best possible thing. They refused to talk to the cops. The cops usually make their case from what you say. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 91487
This is really good information to know. |
| shibumi2
User ID: 74188
8/21/2006 11:49 AM
 | | Re: This Could Save Your Life! Jury Nullification, Why You Should Know What it Is | Quote |
95% of ALL cases settle out of court...attorneys and the system depend on that or the legal system would collapse...
worse, the attorneys would actually have to do some work |
| |
|
