[billythekid]

AFTER THE FALL OF JUSTICE
When Justice Leaves the Courtroom, Hope Turns Elsewhere
by Claire Wolfe

In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within the hearing of jurors. Those who dial the number hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience.

In Washington state, a judge and three U.S. attorneys covertly excise key pages from a booklet before allowing it to be entered as defense evidence in the trial of several militia members. They are not charged with evidence tampering.

Another day in the American court system. Justice, or its simulacrum, is dispensed as judges and prosecutors see fit. There's nothing new in that.

What's new, or what's dangerously on the increase, is the systematic rigging of the court system to preserve judicial power and punish anyone who dares challenge it. And what's more important -- but clearly unforeseen by the riggers -- is the catastrophe likely to arise from this power grab.

Myths and Hopes

We cherish a myth that the justice system is the last, best hope for the beleaguered "little guy" in the world of the powerful. No matter what happens, we've been told, even the humblest of us can "have our day in court," be heard and be vindicated, as long as truth and fairness are on our side.

This was never literally true, of course. Any poor, black man can tell you the reality of justice. The surviving, imprisoned Branch Davidians can tell you, as can the girlfriend of a drug dealer, locked away for years for sitting in a car during a transaction. Dozens of militiamen, set up by government informants, can tell you. As can dope smokers, tax resisters and businesspeople who made the mistake of violating arcane regulations.

Nevertheless, justice is sometimes served, and the myth prevails. There are good reasons why it must prevail.

In a civil society, the myth of justice serves two related -- if contradictory -- purposes. On one hand, ordinary people need the myth to give them hope against the powerful. On the other, the powerful require ordinary people to believe in the myth because it keeps the rabble complacent.

A belief in justice -- even an erroneous belief -- can be the line that separates gentility from riots in the streets.

Even in these days of cynicism, there has still existed a flame of optimism about the power of ordinary people in the courtroom. The belief is so strong that some advocates of limited government have built their main hope upon it. The constitutionalists -- loosely, the legal researchers, sovereign citizens and pro se litigants who seek to limit the influence of government -- have spent endless hours and endless dollars building cases for, and on, the law.

These hopeful Good Citizens have cherished the belief that they could go into court, present their arguments and (if those arguments proved intellectually, historically and constitutionally correct) prevail against institutionalized injustice. Not only prevail, personally, but return America to a land of limited government and individual rights. With that hope, and armed with reams of legal documents, many have besieged courts and other government agencies.

Some of their arguments have been bogus. Some undeniably correct. A few have won the day. Most have been futile.

A Change in the Tide

Recently, a tiny time bomb landed in my E-mail box. In one sense, there was nothing new about it; some of us radical anti-government curmudgeons have been shouting a similar message for years. But given the source, it was revolutionary.[Note 1]

Headed "Citizen Soldiers," the message said, in part:
I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues....Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore.

....Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo.

I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on its citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile?

Within days, confirmations poured fourth. One came from attorney Steffan Bertsch of Lake Stevens, Washington, author of the book Crisis in Our Courts:

I am sorry to admit that your writer is correct in that there is little or no law running the "justice" system; American justice has given way to ignorance, cowardice and corruption.

....Henry David Thoreau told us that if a law was immoral, that we as moral people must realize that we will not live long enough to change the immoral law by any democratic process and that we must realize that "if it [a law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law."
On Civil Disobedience

This advice is especially true today when Congress and state legislatures pass so many laws that lawyers cannot read the annual output and are forced to resort to reading summaries of statutes and regulations, hence are left vastly ignorant of the laws. American laws are so numerous that "ignorance of the law" should be made a defense if a reasonable person would not know of the law.[Note 2]

The essential point is, again, not the words, but the source. The last dogged proponents of "the system" are beginning to abandon hope.

The justice system was the last legal avenue for these "little guys" and their principled attorneys.[Note 3] What has changed? Why are they abandoning it now when it never has been a perfect system? And, perhaps more important, what happens after they bail out?

Why Now?

The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back:

In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give.
In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to allow defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its most famous cases: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" and have no force from the moment they are passed (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The judges shrug, "Take it up on appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have spent years in prison and be bankrupt.
Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon changed its laws to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states may authorize conviction on a 10-2 vote.
In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict 11-0.
In Washington, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a memo warning fellow members of government they might be "victims" of a type of "organized crime" committed by "extremists." Schmidt's newly defined crime, Paper Terrorism, is characterized primarily as an attempt to use the justice system to challenge the status quo: "Frivolous lawsuits against government entities"; challenging judges in court cases; "disrupting the court system by persuading fellow jail inmates to defend themselves..."; "distributing the extremist Citizens Handbook (sic) to foster jury nullification" and "requesting information from courts, government agencies, elected officials and businesses..." California, Indiana and other states soon followed suit. Legislatures and enforcement agencies are now actively prosecuting courtroom "terrorists."

The Attack on the Jury

An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before them.[Note 4] Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may deliberate on the facts only -- that they may never ask, "Is the law just?" or, "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?"

Until the Kriho case, jury-rights activists (notably the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA [Note 5]) considered their position to be win-win; even if activists were arrested for telling jurors about nullification, or if jurors were charged for practicing it, the juries who tried their cases would --voila! -- hear jury-rights arguments or see jury-rights literature presented in evidence. Naturally. How else could jurors gauge activists' actions?

But under a recent Colorado law, defendants facing six months or less don't receive jury trials. [Note 6] Therefore, a judge and prosecutor got together and carefully structured charges against Kriho to ensure she would not have the benefit of a jury. Facing only a judge, whose power was directly threatened by her stand, Kriho naturally lost (although the judge's decision vindicated part of her position).

But this was only one early, and highly visible, example of the attack on those who challenge the authority of judges and the will of prosecutors. The two cases cited at the top of this article are others. In the Washington State Militiacase, what did the judge and prosecutors excise from the evidence? The jury-rights section of The Citizen's Rulebook.

The attack on the jury extends across national borders, as well. In Canada, a juror in that country's longest and most expensive murder trial (Regina v. Bhudpinder Johal et al., Court File No. CC940998) now faces up to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. There is evidence the juror, Gillian Guess, behaved foolishly -- visiting several defendants and, after the verdict, forming a sexual relationship with one of them. However, she never received an order not to visit them, and there is no evidence she influenced the outcome of the trial.

Why charge Guess? For one thing, the jury humiliated the prosecution -- finding every defendant not guilty in this highly publicized trial. But Guess was the only one who went on television afterward and declared that the government should never have brought "such flimsy charges" against the defendants.

In previous cases of juror misconduct, judges have declared mistrials, or appeals courts have overturned guilty verdicts. But for 300 years, the independence of the jury has never been threatened, even by the angriest prosecutor or most dictatorial judge. Prosecuting jurors is a new trend whose danger as an intimidation tactic can't be overstated.

There is, however, not only a trend to cow jurors into obedience, but to fill juries with those who are predisposed to obey orders.

The process of voir dire was originally intended to screen out friends of either side or people with unshakable prejudices. However, it has become, as syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz and attorney Bertsch have both pointed out, a jury-stacking scheme. Jurors are grilled on their sex lives and the number of guns in their homes. (The very process screens out anyone with enough spine to refuse to answer outrageous questions.) In high-profile trials they are subject to private investigation and "management" by jury consultants, looking not for impartiality, but for desired forms of bias.

If prospective jurors express knowledge of jury rights or hint that conscience might take precedence over authority, they're out. The truly independent-minded juror is automatically abolished from the panel.

Thus, the news is filled with tales from jurors, who cry that they had "no choice but to convict," over the objections of their own conscience and common sense. In a notorious 1997 case, jurors emerged from deliberations weeping and demanding a governor's pardon for an 18-year-old boy they had just convicted of child molesting. His "crime" carried a horrifying mandatory sentence. Yet he had done nothing worse than get his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. Jurors recognized they had before them a normal teenager who,in fact, wanted to "do the right thing" and marry the girl. But the judge decreed his jurors could only judge the facts, not the fairness of the law. The jurors were, as the old Nazi claim goes, "only following orders."

Swimming with Piranhas

We have reached a point at which "the law is whatever I say it is" -- as long as the "I" in question is a judge or a prosecutor. Because the appeals system is populated by members of the same "club," the most outrageous injustices are often upheld.

Those who dissent are like minnows among piranhas. Their earnest belief in the truth is no defense against a frenzy of carnivores.

Yet, the piranhas fear the minnows -- or are at least determined to show the next little school of challengers not to mess with guys who have sharp teeth. Clearly many of the above judicial maneuverings are in response to the perceived threat posed by self-taught legal scholars and jury-rights activists.

The problem is this: No matter why authorities maneuver to curb the power of juries and political dissidents, the effect of their power play can strike anyone.

A judge may issue orders in defiance of FIJA, but it isn't FIJA who suffers when the jury convicts against its own conscience. It's the poor pot smoker, militia member or gun owner convicted of violating an unconscionable law.

A judge may refuse to admit constitutional arguments to her courtroom out of frustration with "paper terrorists." And indeed the "terrorists" suffer and become more outraged. But the status of justice suffers worse.

Even victories present dangers. When a FIJA activist or drug user goes free because of a hung jury, those momentary triumphs inspire courtroom crackdowns, revenge against jurors, and laws to further curtail jury power.

Ultimately, the myth dies. Whether you're a constitutional scholar or a semi-literate kid, you know you won't get justice in the justice system. Remember, the justice system isn't the little guy's first hope. It's the last. What do you do when that hope is snuffed?

The weary, but principled writer of "Citizen Soldiers" says:

In my humble opinion, we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS.

But this cry of defiance sounds sweetly innocent when compared with what a less principled "little guy" is likely to do if he knows he can't get justice in the courts. As Vin Suprynowicz wrote, commenting upon the New York 11-0 verdict, which was partially supported by the Court of Appeals:

The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers.

So far, when advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success.

But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that suspect is far more likely to figure "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me."

The same is true of any form of court-rigging. Those who crave authority should understand that when they do anything to reduce the power of ordinary citizens in court -- whether jurors or defendants -- they do so at their own peril. The justice system serves as a safety valve on the overheated engine of society. Plug the valve and something explodes.

Ultimately, prosecutors and judges who behave like tyrants in the courtroom will find that it isn't the little guy -- the demonized "paper terrorist," the jury-rights advocate, the pot smoker, the militia member, the drug entrepreneur or the errant juror -- who suffers the most dire consequences when the justice myth dies.

No. When the powerful close the doors to justice -- and when common people understand that the doors are closed, we have one more place to turn: the streets.
# # # # # # # # #

1. The message was posted anonymously to the ICE Internet list. The author copied it to me, under his own name.
2. Both Bertsch's essay and "Citizen Soldiers" can be read in full at Wolfe's Lodge http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110.
3. Yes, believe it or not "principled attorney" isn't always an oxymoron.
4. FIJA, P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843, (406) 793-5550, http://www.fija.org/. Prospective jurors call 1-800-TEL-JURY. Also see The Jury Rights Project, http://www.lrt.org/jrp.homepage.htm
5. The Colorado statute and similar statutes in other states are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights, Article VI, says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

© 1998 Claire Wolfe. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is reprinted in full with no changes whatsoever, and is accompanied by this credit line. Partial or edited reprints may be made with written permission of the author.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give.

She was not presecuted for "refusing to convict a defendent" She was tried (unfairly) for failing to exercise any candor whatsoever about her extensive background as an activist for the legalization of pot, and her past drug conviction, when she was being considered for jury duty in a drug case.

She was asked directly: "Do you know of any reason why you cannot be an objective juror in this case"?

Gee, I wonder if her past drug convictions might have been slightly germane.

She is far from being another Sharansky.

[Reno]

Luke, I have no drug convictions, don't even use 'em, and I would've refused to convict.

Am I somehow unable of being "objective" because of my pro-liberty views? Should juries be restricted to stoolies of The State?

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Luke, I have no drug convictions, don't even use 'em, and I would've refused to convict.

Am I somehow unable of being "objective" because of my pro-liberty views? Should juries be restricted to stoolies of The State?

If you are asked directly whether you harbor views that would prevent you from voting to convict, then you have an obligation to answer truthfully.

And again, this woman was tried for having constructively lied about her past criminal conviction. No reasonable person could believe that answering "no" to the question asked of her was truthful.

[Sindawe]

And again, this woman was tried for having constructively lied about her past criminal conviction. No reasonable person could believe that answering "no" to the question asked of her was truthful. Not quite... Laura Kriho answered to what she believed to be the truth.

The judge and prosecutor James Stanley were so enraged at losing a conviction that the DA had his investigator inquire who the hold-out juror was. Detectives investigated Kriho and discovered that she had received a deferred judgment on the charge of possession of LSD in 1985. After Kriho completed two years of probation, the charge was supposed to be wiped from her record. Kriho believed that it had been.

Source:http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.krihobkgd.htm

[billythekid]

With a little research one can find, Luke, that the Jury was instituted so we could judge both the law and facts in criminal prosection. It is a VOTE the government indoctrination centers (Public schools) don't tell us about...

I refuse to convict ANYONE tried for an offense that did not harm some else's life, liberty or property...

[centac]

And that is why you will never sit on a jury.......

[beerslurpy]

Jury duty avoids me like the plague. Never even been summoned once.

As long as the people who could participate effectively in a revolution are kept busy in jobs instead of being squeezed by the government, there will be no revolution.

Take away economic prosperity and a revolution has a shot. I personally suspect that the portion of unemployed and angry engineers is directly proportional to the number of IEDs that go off in a given week of insurrection.

Look at Iraq- you basically took the educated middle class and relegated it to ghetto status overnight without disarming it or taking away any of the skills it got from its formerly privileged status. Voila, all the best organizers, fabricators and chemists in a society suddenly are very pissed off at their new government and explodey chaos ensues.

Has that happened here? No, the squeeze is always being put on the lower echelons of society. The police routinely kick down doors in south st pete. Do they ever do it in my neighborhood? Not that I am aware of.

Basically to get a revolution, you need a government that beleives it has power beyond what it actually has- throwing your weight around isnt necessarily a terminal problem- its throwing around more weight than you have that gets you in trouble. I dont think ours has gotten there yet. I am speaking less from a perspective of "when would it be morally correct to revolvt" but "when is a revolution likely to spontaneously arise, correct or not."

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Not quite... Laura Kriho answered to what she believed to be the truth.

No she didn't. She was not acting under any mental delusion. She deliberately lied. A lie of omission is still a lie.

No reasonable person could beleive that:

1. a past criminal conviction of a type similar to that sought by the State in the case at hand, and;

2. lengthy political activity in opposition to convictions of the type sought by the State in the case she was being considered for jury duty;

would not be pertinant to the question asked of her: "Do you know of any reason why you could not be an objective juror in this case?" Particularly after being made aware of her legal obligation to answer truthfully to the question.

Ones political beliefs do not give one a pass on a legal obligation to answer truthfully, and don't engender some flaky "right to lie" in order to get on a jury for the purposes of nullification.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

With a little research one can find, Luke, that the Jury was instituted so we could judge both the law and facts in criminal prosection. It is a VOTE the government indoctrination centers (Public schools) don't tell us about...

I refuse to convict ANYONE tried for an offense that did not harm some else's life, liberty or property...


Which has nothing to do with this woman deliberately lying in order to get on the jury in the first place.

Again, you have a legal obligation to answer truthfully if you are asked if you harbor any political beliefs or other reasons that would prevent you from being an objective juror.

[2nd Amendment]

And that is why you will never sit on a jury.......

It's baseless assumptions and wish-fantasies like the above which cause people to ignore everything you say, even on the rare occasion you actually do make a (semi)valuable contribution.

[fedlaw]

It is routine in our district, ND IL, ED, (Chicago), for the U.S.Atty to file a motion in limine just prior to trial requesting that the court order defense counsel to avoid any argument that might lead to jury nullification. This is routinely granted, even though it is a redundant request (our local rules of practice prohibit counsel from arguing for nullification.) I usually make an issue of this by ridiculing the whole notion that I would even think of such a thing. Of course I then argue it to the jury every chance I get. I cannot say I have ever had a jury return a NG based on nullifying a law, but I believe it has helped to make the panel members more aware of their responsibility and raise the burden of proof back to where it should be: Beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the de facto standard of preponderance which it seems to have become in many courtrooms.

[Sindawe]

No she didn't. She was not acting under any mental delusion. She deliberately lied. A lie of omission is still a lie. And you know this how? You are gifted with the ability to see inside her head at point in the past determine her state of mind?

[Bill Cosby] RRRRRRIGHT.. [/Bill Cosby]

Laura Kriho honestly believed that the charge and conviction had been expunged from her record after completing her probation. She believed the Judge and prosecuting DA in her case back in 1985. I know this not because I can see inside her head, but from the breif conversation I had with her when this event occured, and from listening to her speak at gatherings in Boulder and Nederland in her support.

No reasonable person could beleive that:

1. a past criminal conviction of a type similar to that sought by the State in the case at hand, and;

2. lengthy political activity in opposition to convictions of the type sought by the State in the case she was being considered for jury duty;

would not be pertinant to the question asked of her: "Do you know of any reason why you could not be an objective juror in this case?" So, since in the past I have plead guilty to occasional minor traffic offenses in the past, I am now incapable of being an objective juror in any future traffic cases that may come to trail?

Or is that you can not comprehend a person being able to set aside their own viewpoints and prejudices in order to objectively judge a set of facts presented before them?

[Waitone]

Screeeeeech. <Slams truck into reverse>
It is routine in our district, ND IL, ED, (Chicago), for the U.S.Atty to file a motion in limine just prior to trial requesting that the court order defense counsel to avoid any argument that might lead to jury nullification. This is routinely granted, even though it is a redundant request (our local rules of practice prohibit counsel from arguing for nullification.) Are you saying Counsellor "the system" is doing what it can to preclude enlightening the jury of its privilege of jury nullification from the outset? If my assessment is correct, why is it "the system" is so interested in keeping juries from independent thought and action?

[TallPine]

A few years ago, I got kicked off ("excused" is the official term) a prospective federal criminal trial jury for stating that I did not see that a crime of assault against a "person of color" justified such offense becoming a federal case rather than a simple local one.

It was fine by me at the time, as I had a software delivery to finish that week.

As Dave Barry said, you have the right to be judged by a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. :p :uhoh:

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Or is that you can not comprehend a person being able to set aside their own viewpoints and prejudices in order to objectively judge a set of facts presented before them?

You seem to be unwilling to consider the concept of honesty before the tribunal. Disclosure of pertinant details of your political activities or past criminal convictions is not discretionary on your part under these circumstances. Again, for the third time, you have a legal duty to do so. Disclosure is mandatory regardless of whether you feel that you can still be objective. Such an evaluation is for the defense counsel or the State's representative to make, not you.

You also seem to be ignoring the concept that a criminal defendent has an absolute right to a fair and impartial jury, and that this issue is completely independent of jury nullification.

You are forgetting that a lack of objectivity in a juror can cut both ways. It isn't always a libertarian seeking to nullify an unjust law restricting behavior that ought to be a matter of personal choice such as laws mandating seatbelt usage. For example, it can just as easily be a racist seeking to convict a black man of raping a white woman despite a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That juror would have had a legal obligation to disclose past membership in the KKK.

[jefnvk]

In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within the hearing of jurors. Those who dial the number hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience.

Is that really allowed? Juries being able to vote based on their conscience, rather than what was presented and whether they thougght the law was broken?

[blackrazor]

Jefnvk,

The fact that you even have to ask that question is a testament to how badly the system has brainwashed everyone. As a juror, you can 'vote' however you want, no juror can be punished for their verdict, no matter what. You have a duty not only to decide the applicability of the law, but to judge the validity of the law itself. They should teach jury nullification in secondary school, but I guess they would rather teach kids that the 2nd amendment is out of date and irrelevent. :banghead:

[Old Dog]

That prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct and police misconduct happens -- and probably too frequently -- is well-established. Wolfe's essay points out a couple of the most egregious episodes in an attempt to portray the entire jury system as in trouble, yet she is able only to put forth the idea of jury nullification as a solution? As a means to change bad laws or reform renegade government systems, this seems pretty iffy to me.
The fact that you even have to ask that question is a testament to how badly the system has brainwashed everyone The system has brainwashed everyone? Really? Someone's been reading too much John Grisham ...
As Dave Barry said, you have the right to be judged by a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. More naive soundbites used to discredit the system. Hmm. Actually, it's getting tougher and tougher to get out of jury duty, depending on one's area, as my wife discovered that even an ER nurse in a understaffed major trauma center couldn't avoid having to serve.

[centac]

As a cop there was no guarentee that I could get out of jury duty.

The whole concept of nullification is irksome. There are already mechanisms in place to remedy bad laws. Jury duty is just that, a duty and responsibility, with rules and guidelines. The juror's job is to evaluate evidence, the judges' job is to evaluate the law, not vice-versa. It's that nation of laws thing again, we dont have the luxury as individuals of up and deciding that certain laws arbitrarily do not apply.

[centac]

"It's baseless assumptions and wish-fantasies like the above which cause people to ignore everything you say, even on the rare occasion you actually do make a (semi)valuable contribution."

If you are going to ignore everything I say dont waste your time commenting on it. I'll try to suffer by without your approval. It'll be tough, but I think I can make it. :rolleyes:

[Waitone]

IIRC our concept of jury nullification is based in english comon law. The idea is to pass judgment on the law as well as judging the defendant against the law. In my opinion if the concept were not a threat to a statist society, "the system" would not go out of its way to invalidate it.

Then again it is an academic exercise for me since I will never get to sit on a jury.

[Sindawe]

You seem to be unwilling to consider the concept of honesty before the tribunal. Disclosure of pertinant details of your political activities or past criminal convictions is not discretionary on your part under these circumstances. Again, for the third time, you have a legal duty to do so. Disclosure is mandatory regardless of whether you feel that you can still be objective Please supply the legal citations for this opion. You also seem to be ignoring the concept that a criminal defendent has an absolute right to a fair and impartial jury, and that this issue is completely independent of jury nullification. And a fair & impartial jury is one that blindly follows the judges instructions? IIRC, that is part of my Laura Kriho was prosecuted. She went out and researched the possible penalties for the person on trial, in order to be fully informed as to what she was judging.The juror's job is to evaluate evidence, the judges' job is to evaluate the law, not vice-versa. Some old dead white guys would disagree with you there centac.. John Adams eloquently argued the case, chastising Parliament for depriving Americans of their right to trial by jury. Adams later said of 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." (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173) At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact. In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4) The whole concept of nullification is irksome. Of course its irksome to some. It impedes the State from imposing its will and glory apon its masters. That is the whole point. "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." -Thomas Jefferson

[blackrazor]

The system has brainwashed everyone? Really? Someone's been reading too much John Grisham ...

Nope, don't read Grisham, if you want to blow off what I said you'll have to come up with different witty quip.

The whole concept of nullification is irksome.

Yeah, damn that troublesome American system of juries, trials, etc. We should just let the cops run everything. :rolleyes: Do you even know why we have the jury system... or wait... maybe that's why you don't like it.

The juror's job is to evaluate evidence, the judges' job is to evaluate the law, not vice-versa.
-"Centac", poster on thehighroad.org

BWah ha ha! Maybe in your <view>, but not here in America my <> friend. Let's compare your educated opinion with some others, shall we?

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
-John Jay, 1st Supreme Court Justice

The Jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts -Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice

Don't like supreme court justices? How about US Presidents?

It is not only the trial juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition of the direction of the court.
-John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

It seems to me that John Jay, Samuel Chase, and John Adams all disagree with your view of the juror's "duty". I know who I'm siding with on this one.

[TallPine]

The whole concept of nullification is irksome.
Yep, it sure is, isn't it ? :neener:

How ghastly that jurors might have the audacity to question the almighty government!

[280PLUS]

You have decided to represent yourself in some case against you. You feel the law is unjust. During your interview of your potential jurors, are you allowed to inform them of their ability to judge the law and vote their conscience? Would this be against court rules and not be allowed?

In other words, yes, a lot of people don't understand or are not aware of the concept of a juror voting his or her conscience, therefore, shouldn't you be and / or are you allowed to inform them of this prior to your approving them as a juror in your case?

I mean, we all want informed jurors hearing our case. Don't we?

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Please supply the legal citations for this opion.

Sure thing:

In criminal trials we have the Federal Rules of Criminal Proceedure:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule24.htm

In civil trials we have the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure: see FRCP Rule 47: Jurors.

For an exemplary State statue: South Carolina Code Sec. 14-7-1020:
"The Court shall, on motion of either party in the suit, examine on oath any person who is called as a juror to know whether he is related to either party, has any interest in the cause, has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein, and the party objecting to the juror may introduce any other competent evidence in support of the objection. If it appears to the Court that the juror is not indifferent in the cause, he must be placed aside as to the trial of that cause and another must be called.

And a fair & impartial jury is one that blindly follows the judges instructions? IIRC, that is part of my Laura Kriho was prosecuted. She went out and researched the possible penalties for the person on trial, in order to be fully informed as to what she was judging.

That's nice. Unfortunately she was prosecuted for lying to the Court about her past criminal conviction and past political advocacy in the Defendant's cause.

Anyone called to jury duty is sworn, and has an absolute legal duty to answer the questions truthfully, and a moral duty to respect the accused's right to a fair trial including the right to a fair and impartial jury. Again, for the fourth time, this is independent of the concept of jury nullification.

I am amazed to see the Libertarians supporting abolishing the right to a fair and impartial jury.

It's disturbing to see the Libertarians joining with the Socialists in the arrogant belief that they are entilted to "make up" the law as the see fit, and lie under oath to a court.

Does anyone really think that such people, i.e., the Socialists-Libertarians, would respect other written law, such as the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution?

[centac]

The law has changed just a skosh since the times of Adams, Chase et al. Again, there is a mechanism for correcting faulty laws that exists apart from the jury. Worst comes to worst the judge can vacate the jury's decision and rightfully should, if the jury deviates from the appropriate rules of procedure. To allow jurors free reign to vote their conscience (read prejudice) violates the basic tenets of equality in due process.

[280PLUS]

So how many potential jurors can one go through before enough is enough. If one after the other they demonstrate predjudice for or against a cause are we allowed to dismiss them until we come up with 12 that have no opinion / predjudice either way on a given subject or law? Seems like it could go on forever in some cases.

[Telperion]

Again, centac, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that juries have an absolute, non-reviewable right to judge the law as well the facts. And I know of no rule that allows a judge to throw out a jury's verdict of not guilty.

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." U. S. v Dougherty (1972), 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139

Has the law changed a "skosh" since 1972 centac? Question for you: if allowing the juries to think independently is so objectionable, what conceivable purpose does the jury serve? Why not just make the judge decide the whole thing, after all he has sit through everything and we hired him to be impartial, eh?

[blackrazor]

Centac,

You're really starting to sound like a liberal now. Those silly old white folks, we know better nowadays... yeah... while you're at it, let's get rid of that bothersome 2nd amendment, heck, it's only a reminent from that old constitution anyway. Things have changed since then...

I call BS on everything you say Centac. If things have changed, please let me know when and how they changed. With all your handwaving and posturing, you have yet to provide any evidence that what you say is true. Do you have any references? Anything?

Worst comes to worst the judge can vacate the jury's decision and rightfully should
BS. Please site ONE EXAMPLE of a judge overturning a "not guilty" verdict from a jury (other than fraudulent/corrupt/bought off jurors). C'mon, just one, I want to see it. If the judge can overturn a jury decision, what's the point of the jury? :banghead:

Now I know why cops don't make it through law school. :rolleyes:

[centac]

What was that case a couple years back, involved an English nanny and an assault charge? I believe the jury's decision was vacated in that one.... When judges believe that a jury has made an erroneous verdict that are ethically bound to vacate it and order a new trial. This should apply in nullification cases also, when the jury reaches a verdict that is not based on the evidence.

Look, ya dont like a law, get it changed, dont pervert the system to do it.

BTW the law changes every day

[Telperion]

Did you at all read what I just wrote? I said a not guilty verdict is not reviewable. Louise Woodward was found guilty at trial and that verdict was reduced.

I'm sorry, but jury nullification is not a "perversion of the system". It is an inherant power and right of a jury, and has been reaffirmed by jurists from the 18th to the 20th century. And I think men like John Jay and Thomas Jefferson have better a conception of liberty than you do.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question. If jury nullification "perverts the system", why don't you advocate that we scrap trial by jury, and have a judge or a panel of judges decide everything?

[blackrazor]

Look, ya dont like a law, get it changed, dont pervert the system to do it.

You can't change the law when the system itself is peverted, that's the point. Jury nullification isn't perverting the system, IT IS the system.

[Flyboy]

The system has brainwashed everyone? Really? Someone's been reading too much John Grisham....
Or perhaps a little too much John Jay (you know, the former Chief Justice):
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
(State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1), 1794)



More recent? OK, let's try some Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 1451, 20 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1968):
Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power -- a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.



Maybe a little Judge Lerned Hand (who privately referred to SCOTUS as "The Blessed Saints, Cherubim and Seraphim," "The Jolly Boys," "The Nine Tin Jesuses," "The Nine Blameless Ethiopians," and "The Nine Blessed Chalices of the Sacred Effluvium."), in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 1906, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1970):
"The essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the common sense judgment of a group of laymen, and in the community participation and shared responsibility that results from that group's determination of guilt or innocence."



And if you don't like that one, there's always US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113 (1972)
[*1131] Reflective opinions upholding the necessity for the jury as a protection against arbitrary action, such as prosecutorial abuse of power, stress fundamental features like the jury "common sense judgment" and assurance of "community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence." n34 Human frailty [*1132] being what it is, a prosecutor disposed by unworthy motives could likely establish some basis in fact for bringing charges against anyone he wants to book, but the jury system operates in fact, (see note 33) so that the jury will not convict when they empathize with the defendant, as when the offense is one they see themselves as likely to commit, or consider generally acceptable or condonable under the mores of the community.
(BTW, that last one was not a trial court, it was a Circuit Court of Appeals, inferior only to SCOTUS.)



Shall I go on?

[Sindawe]

Cool Hand Luke 22:36 - Rule 24 that you provided a link for says nothing about a prospective juror having a legal obligation to dislose political ideology or past criminal convictions. Rule 47 does not even address jurors, it deals with motions and supporting affidavits.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule47.htm

From what *I* can see, the cited passage of South Carolina Code Sec. 14-7-1020: covers examining prospective jurors under oath, and setting them aside if to the courts eyes they do not appear to indifferent to the case. Of course, IANAL.

[dustind]

Some of you guys may be interested in the Fully Informed Jury Association. www.fija.org

[another okie]

The jury box is one expression of democracy.

There's an old saying that there are four boxes to protect liberty:

the soap box (free speech)
the ballot box
the jury box
the cartridge box

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Cool Hand Luke 22:36 - Rule 24 that you provided a link for says nothing about a prospective juror having a legal obligation to dislose political ideology or past criminal convictions.

It provides for questioning jurors about exactly those topics under oath in Federal Criminal proceedings.

47 does not even address jurors, it deals with motions and supporting affidavits.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule47.htm

You're looking at Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proceedure. I cited rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule47.htm

From what *I* can see, the cited passage of South Carolina Code Sec. 14-7-1020: covers examining prospective jurors under oath, and setting them aside if to the courts eyes they do not appear to indifferent to the case. Of course, IANAL.

It covers candor by a potential juror to the tribunal.

Again, as the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Proceedure provide, and as State statutes provide, a potential juror is examined under oath about anything that may reflect bias and an inability to be objective. One cannot lie to the Court about these matters in order to sit on a jury with an eye towards nullification of any adverse verdict.

[Bill St. Clair]

I don't expect Cool Hand Luke or the other gummint apologists will change their tune, and I'm not going to spend the time to provide historical footnotes, but this is the way I remember the reason we have juries.

Before the time of the Magna Carta, the king and his minions arrested anybody they wanted for anything they wanted and submitted them to any punishment they wanted. The people grew tired of this. They demanded of the king that he must allow a jury of the defendents' peers to judge his guilt. If the jury voted to acquit, the king must let the defendent walk. They didn't just ask the king to do this, they demanded it, on penalty of death.

The defendents' "peers" would be people who lived in the area of the alleged crime, people who likely knew him and likely already had an opinion of his character, and of the alleged law and the characters of his accusers. They had plenty of pre-existing prejudices about the outcome of the trial. And rightly so.

The reason we have juries is to protect we the people from our government. Once the judge can control the jury, can force them to become judgers of evidence and not judgers of right and wrong, trial by jury becomes a farce. It becomes trial by government, and we're right back to where we were before the Magna Carta.

We need to once again remind the king that he will provide jury trials, fully-informed jury trials, where every juror is reminded at the beginning of every trial of his age-old right and duty to judge the alleged law as well as the alleged law-breaker, or we'll hang the bastard and his minions from the nearest lampposts.

[280PLUS]

fully-informed jury trials, where every juror is reminded at the beginning of every trial of his age-old right and duty to judge the alleged law as well as the alleged law-breaker

I ask again, during the jury selection process is the defendant or his lawyer allowed to fully inform each potential juror as to these facts? Or would that be stepping beyond the bounds of legalities in courtroom procedure?

[centac]

Their have to be some lawyers lurking here....

Jury trials occur in the minority of cases, and only upon defense motion. Clearly, judges are loathe to interfere with a juries' actions but they have to be able to do that. Just how loathe is evidenced by the OJ Simpson verdict. There are also a slew of appeal issues that can arise from jury related issues. The court process is so transparent that the protection offered by a jury is largely illusory. Isnt it kinda ironic that the only thing about our judicial and legal system that isnt transparent and subject to public review is - jury activities? The only secrecy in our court process is that involving civilian juries, grand and petit.

Y'all dislike activist judges who legislate from the bench, but ya want juries to be able to do the exact same thing?

[javafiend]

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
That's nice. Unfortunately she was prosecuted for lying to the Court about her past criminal conviction and past political advocacy in the Defendant's cause.

It should be pointed out that Kriho was acquitted.
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/acquit.index.htm

Juries have the authority to judge both the facts and the law.

[Sindawe]

You're looking at Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proceedure. I cited rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure: Yep, you are correct. My bad.

However, that section does not address the question I was rasing with you.

Clark v. United States_, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) (United States Supreme Court affirmed judgment finding juror in contempt of court for giving knowingly misleading and knowingly false answers in response to questions concerning her qualifications as a juror during jury selection process) DOES address the question I raised, and supports your contention about a legal obligation to be truthful during vior dire (but IMHO is not relevant to the Kriho case). I *was* gonna write you up an invoice for services rendered in support of your argument (all in fun), but after reading this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=139454) with my morning java, I'm not really in jovial mood anymore.

[Bill St. Clair]

centac:
Y'all dislike activist judges who legislate from the bench, but ya want juries to be able to do the exact same thing?
There's a big difference between the two. When a judge legislates from the bench, and the defendent doesn't appeal or loses the appeal, the decision is used forevermore as a legal precendent. When a jury nullifies the law, their decision applies to only that one case. Personally, I don't believe that precedent should be allowable. I believe that every criminal case is unique, and needs to be judged on its unique merits. If that clogs the courts, so be it. Get rid of the 90% of criminal "law" with no direct Constitutional authority to exist, and that problem will be quickly solved (the Constitution does not grant the U.S. Congress the authority to do anything whatsoever about drugs or guns or schools or welfare or social security or medicine or domestic airplane flights, etc., etc., except for the gaping hole that's been invented out of the commerce clause).

And hey, if juries don't deserve their deliberations to be secret, why do voters?

[Gordon Fink]

Should RKBA proponents recuse themselves from weapons cases? In so doing, wouldn’t they risk tainting the jury pool?

“Your Honor, in studying the Constitution, I noticed that we have a right to keep and bear arms. The defendant is accused of carrying a handgun without a license, so I would not be able to convict him on this unconstitutional and therefore illegal charge.”

~G. Fink

[richyoung]

...I find myself agreeing with Mr. Fink more and more....

[cropcirclewalker]

The first time I sat in a jury box I got preemptorily challanged and excused. I never said a word. I considered it a compliment.

When the judge asks you in Voi Dierre, "Do you know the difference between right and wrong?" You tell the truth and say yes, you get excused. You lie and say yes, you get to stay.

When the judge asks you in Voi Dierre, "Is there any reason why you will not vote in accordance with the judge's instructions to further the power of the state? You tell the truth and say yes, you get excused. You lie and say no, you get to stay.

When the judge asks you in Voi Dierre, "Are you familiar with the FIJA?" You tell the truth and say yes, you get excused. You lie and say no, you get to stay.

What does any of the above questions have to do with you're ability to objectively find facts or law on a jury?

The real question they should be asking the jury......"Will you do what you're told?" Yes, you're in. No, you're out.

Like the bumper sticker says, "It Ain't Justice, It's Just Court".

[blackrazor]

Y'all dislike activist judges who legislate from the bench, but ya want juries to be able to do the exact same thing?

That's right. Why? Because:
Judge = government employee
Jury = your peers

If you ever wind up falsely accused, who are you going to trust, the government that's charging you, or your peers?

Should RKBA proponents recuse themselves from weapons cases?

When it comes to jury selection, I don't think of myself and therefore won't admit to being a "RKBA proponent". I'm just NOT Anti-RKBA. Being pro RKBA is the normal mindset of all sane people, it's those anti's who have strange beliefs. The fact that I own guns is irrelevent to a weapons case, just as the fact that I drive a car is irrelevent to a vehicular manslaughter case.

[Jac]

Centac:
The law has changed just a skosh since the times of Adams, Chase et al. Again, there is a mechanism for correcting faulty laws that exists apart from the jury. Worst comes to worst the judge can vacate the jury's decision and rightfully should, if the jury deviates from the appropriate rules of procedure. To allow jurors free reign to vote their conscience (read prejudice) violates the basic tenets of equality in due process.

I'm sorry, WHAT?!? "The law has changed just a skosh since the times of Adams, Chase et al."?!? Did you just say that ON A PRO-2nd AMENDMANT SITE?!?!?!?!? :eek:

Please tell me you see the irony in that...

[SteveS]

If you ever wind up falsely accused, who are you going to trust, the government that's charging you, or your peers?

Depends on the situation and the people. There are some judges that I trust to be fair and decent people and there are some jurors that I wouldn't trust to pick out my socks. BTW, I believe that jury nullification, of the most part, is a good thing.

I'm sorry, WHAT?!? "The law has changed just a skosh since the times of Adams, Chase et al."?!? Did you just say that ON A PRO-2nd AMENDMANT SITE?!?!?!?!?

Sometimes the law changes for the better. For example, do we want to go back to the way it used to be when the BOR didn't apply to the states? OTOH, there is a bad side to this with the increasing number of things that are being called "interstate commerce."

[ravinraven]

"...yet she is able only to put forth the idea of jury nullification as a solution? As a means to change bad laws..."

It seems to me that jury nullification should be the subject of a book AND a DVD so that it gets the widest circulation. There would probably have to be a chapter for each state. Don't know.

On the subject of getting out of jury duty--We had a case up here in FAR northern NY where a county court judge's wife did not get out of jury duty and the trial she sat on was run by her husband the judge.

Sounds like a stray episode from "All In The Family" or something. There was sure a lot of talk and letters to the editor, etc. on that one. But there was no legal problems with it, apparently. I can't remember the case, but the verdict stood.

The nice part of it was that people who knew nothing at all about the courts and juries were learning as they jabbered.

rr

[centac]

"If you ever wind up falsely accused, who are you going to trust, the government that's charging you, or your peers? "

The judge hearing the case is seperate and distinct from the prosecuting attorney, who represents THE PEOPLE. One is judicial branch, the other executive. If you think judges just go along with whatever prosecutors want, well, they dont. And like many lawyers might recommend, if I am falsely accused darn straight I'll pick a bench trial. The judge is to be an impartial trier of fact and procedure, and if not it is instant grounds for appeal. Who knows what a jury'll do.

[blackrazor]

umm... who pays the judge's salary? Who does he work for again?

and.... ummm... who pays the prosecutor's salary?

[Art Eatman]

centac sez, "The judge hearing the case is seperate and distinct from the prosecuting attorney, who represents THE PEOPLE. One is judicial branch, the other executive. If you think judges just go along with whatever prosecutors want, well, they dont."

I hope you don't think that's a 100% deal. Albeit minor, I've run into more than one instance where the judge specifically stated he'd believe the police or the prosecutor over the defendant.

"And like many lawyers might recommend, if I am falsely accused darn straight I'll pick a bench trial. The judge is to be an impartial trier of fact and procedure, and if not it is instant grounds for appeal."

The judge is supposed to be, true. No argument, there. But, if the judge isn't impartial, how can you guarantee to prove that or win the appeal? For instance, compare the 9th fed-dist in California with the 5th fed-dist in New Orleans on gun-related issues. Those appeals courts judges were once "small fry". Look up the history of California's Rose Byrd, for that matter.

I've been on two federal juries and two state juries. I think I have at least a modicum of knowledge about the entire process. I even "did time" as a witness in a murder trial, called upon by both the prosecution and by the defense. In none of those trials was there any issue in my mind of the appropriateness of the law.

But you may rest assured that I am one old man who has no hesitation whatsoever in quietly saying, "Not guilty," if I think a particular law is unjust or unconstitutional. Nothing in jury rules sez I gotta explain my position, either. Nada. Been there, know that.

And I have no fear of consequences, either. I saw four-star generals get all a-quiver during the Hungarian Crisis in 1957, afraid we'd be H-bombed. I've been basackards in a race car at 150+, and I've survived cancer. I just do what I think's right, same as always during my half-century of voting.

:), Art

[centac]

"I hope you don't think that's a 100% deal."

I dont think there are any 100% deals whenever you deal with human behavior. But the system works more often than not. For every abnormal case anyone can cite there are plenty in which absolutely nothing extrajudical happened. No system of any sort runs at 100% efficiency.

Whether or not a law is just or not is not the decision of the defendant, heck, prisons are full of guys who will tell you that any given law is unjust. Ya wanna change the law, change the law. Thats what legislators are for. Juries are for evaluating the weight of evidence, not the weight of the law.

I think it was OW Holmes who told a lawyer once: "This is a court of law, not a court of justice"

[Vernal45]

umm... who pays the judge's salary? Who does he work for again?
and.... ummm... who pays the prosecutor's salary?

Double tap on that one.


But the system works more often than not.

If the system fails 1 time, that is 1 time too many. When the systems fails, someones life is ruined.

[Art Eatman]

"I think it was OW Holmes who told a lawyer once: "This is a court of law, not a court of justice""

Yeah, may well be, centac.

However, a few things come to mind. That symbol around courthouses and courtrooms, for one thing. You know, the blindfolded figure of Justice, with those scales? Why that symbol, if Holmes was correct?

So maybe the concept of "law" and "justice" run together. After all, the laws generally known as the "Speedy Trial Act", here and there around the country were justified as "Justice delayed is justice denied." Those specific words were used.

And isn't a large part of the Constitution speaking to the idea that laws shall be just? Isn't (wasn't) that a fundamental concept of the U.S. of A.?

As with the Bible, one can always quote somebody of importance to justify some position--and the comment often is taken out of context. I prefer to look at the totality of a system over a long period of time.

Art

[Libertyteeth]

Various books on Jury nullification can be found here, including the
comprehensive work by Clay Conrad, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a
Doctrine, and several by Godfrey Lehman.

http://www.fija.org/prod01.htm

And here is an essay linking jury nullification to the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.fija.org/Doig on Second Amendment.htm

FIJA and the Second Amendment

by Don Doig

We frequently hear the proposition that in the line of defense of our
liberties, first is the ballot box, then the soap box, then the jury box, and
finally, failing all else, the cartridge box.

The latter two really are the enforcement mechanisms for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

An informed jury can and should be the means by which the right to freedom of speech is defended, as in the case of John Peter Zenger. An informed jury could protect against improper search and seizure, secure free exercise of religion, the right peaceably to assemble, and freedom from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury also protects all those rights not specifically enumerated, but covered by the Ninth Amendment.

An informed jury can also act to secure the right to keep and bear arms, by
protecting citizens against prosecutions which would deny that right. I have
read where there are something like 20,000 gun control laws on the books, all
or nearly all of which are arguably unconstitutional.

In many jurisdictions peaceful citizens who use firearms to defend themselves
against armed robbery, home invasions, carjackings or rape are prosecuted for
violating local or state gun control laws. In some cases they are expected to
run away or otherwise not resist, even in their own homes. Clearly these
prosecutions are ripe for the conscientious application of jury nullification
by fully informed jurors.

In other cases, gun owners face prosecution for owning various kinds of
prohibited, politically incorrect (yet certainly constitutionally protected)
firearms, even without having used them in self defense. People carrying
firearms for protection run afoul of various laws, and gun owners in some
locations are prosecuted for failing to register their guns. Business people
licensed as Federal Firearms License dealers are subject to constant
harassment, trumped-up charges, and prosecution for minor technical
violations of arcane and unconstitutional firearms laws and regulations. If
jurors believe that these laws are unconstitutional, if they believe these
laws clearly conflict with the Second Amendment, they have the power to
choose to acquit the defendant, and in so doing, defend the Constitution
itself.

In the course of the ATF's attack on the Branch Davidian church at Waco , four
agents were shot and killed. The jury, in a case that FIJA was involved in,
found the defendants "not guilty" of murder on the grounds of self-defense.
(The jurors did convict the defendants on what they thought were minor
charges, thinking the sentence would be minimal, but Judge Walter Smith
imposed the maximum, and several are still in prison. The jury forewoman
tried to get the sentences reduced.)

In another outrageous showcase of federal power run amok, the attack by
federal marshals on the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge in Idaho , which resulted
in the deaths of Sammy Weaver and Vicky Weaver, Kevin Harris was charged with
murder and several other federal felony counts for the death of a federal
agent. A jury found him not guilty on all counts. Randy Weaver was charged
with eight federal felony counts, and the jury found him not guilty on all
counts. He was acquitted on the charge which involved a sawed-off shotgun,
which had been the whole point of the fiasco in the first place. Weaver was
found guilty of failing to appear in court and of violating his bail
conditions.

A literature search turned up a few recent cases in which a prosecutor saw fit
to charge a gun owner with murder or something similar, but the jury saw it
as self defense. An article from the Fort Wayne , Indiana , News-Sentinel,
April 17, 2003 , reported that Shane Douglas shotgunned an assailant who had
threatened to shoot him for supposedly messin' with his girlfriend. There
was local controversy over the fact that the circumstances were not clear
cut, and Douglas was white and the deceased was black and it was an all-white
jury, but the News-Sentinel pointed out that the previous week, another
largely white jury acquitted a black defendant of aggravated battery and
manslaughter of a white man.

In another case the Delaware News Journal on April 26, reported that a
Wilmington man was acquitted by a jury of murder, attempted murder and two
weapons charges in the shooting death of his downstairs neighbor. He had
claimed self defense because the neighbor and his girlfriend had lunged at
him and he felt threatened.

And finally, according to Yahoo News on March 21, a Texas jury acquitted a man
whose assailant threatened to "carve up his face" because he resembled a
member of the band 'N Sync. Richard Brown shot Eric Acosta because he feared
Acosta had a knife when he made the threat. Great reason to threaten to cut
someone -- Acosta sounds like a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

Repeated failure of juries to convict under controversial and arguably
unconstitutional laws sends a powerful message to the legislature and to the
executive branch that the law is not being supported by the community.
Acquittals and hung juries are expensive and politically embarrassing to the
prosecutor, legislature, executive, and most judges (who are very often not
as neutral and impartial as the myth would have us believe). Never
underestimate the effect acquittals have on the system. Jury nullification is
the most effective and potent power the citizenry has within the political
and legal system, extending even to the level of the individual juror.

Of course, if a prospective juror gets removed during jury selection, that
juror is never going to be able to vote according to conscience, and will be
unable to provide the defendant with the kind of protection envisioned in the
right to trial by jury. It is a mistake to imagine that by mentioning jury
nullification in the process of getting yourself kicked out of the jury pool,
you are doing much good. Recognizing that the present broad latitude allowed
the prosecutor and other lawyers during voir dire is most certainly an
invasion of a person's privacy, you may not have much choice if they pin you
down, but try to avoid volunteering information of any kind. It?s none of
their business. In any case, what you say is up to you and your conscience.
Be alert for any suggestion of the possibility of reasonable doubt, and cling
to it tenaciously once in deliberations. It is very, very difficult for them
to prosecute a juror for being less than forthcoming during jury selection,
but they might be able to kick you off the jury in some jurisdictions, unless
you discuss reasonable doubts concerning the evidence, witnesses, or police
tactics. If you do that, then you can also discuss the power of the jury to
vote its conscience. It helps if you are not alone in your opposition to a
conviction.

It is up to local FIJA chapters and/or gun owners groups to spread the word in
local media regarding the power of the jury, and to work with the defendant
and the defense in discussing effective trial strategies. FIJA HQ sells
various materials, including Clay Conrad's handbook for jurors to help get
through the process of voir dire in criminal trials. There are specific
strategies which skillful attorneys can use to open up the possibility of
verdict according to conscience, which are discussed in FIJA's CLE
(Continuing Legal Education) seminars. See the Supply Shop at www.fija.org
for tapes and transcripts.

Several years ago, an imperial judge in California announced, with regard to
FIJA's work, "This is rebellion!" Ah, the pretensions of power. Talk about
thin skin! If jurors exercising their traditional, constitutional right to
vote their conscience constitutes rebellion, we should ask how preferable is
it to defend the Second Amendment peacefully, without resorting to the
necessity of invoking the Second itself in defense of the right to keep and
bear arms?

[centac]

"If the system fails 1 time, that is 1 time too many. When the systems fails, someones life is ruined."

And your point is.....?

Identify one system of any sort, anything at all, that operates at 100% reliability. C'mon, just one. One measly example of 100% reliability. Just one..... Animal, vegetable or mineral........100% reliability......one teensy weeensy example. Ya wanna be first aboard the next space shuttle? How about going in for surgery? Ever kicked a pop machine? Pistol ever fail to feed, extract, eject or fire?

Can't do it, can ya? Aint no such critter. No matter how hard you huff and puff, it aint gonna happen. Heck, plenty of guilty people get aquitted, why are'nt you squealing about those travesties?

The goal is to have as few failures as possible, which in the judicial system takes the form of the appellate process. There are also mechanisms for redress when the system fails. The horrible government, with its near total immunity, pays out compensation regularly for persons who were screwed by the system.

[cropcirclewalker]

Hi, ho, Mr. Centac, thank you for your candidity.

It appears that you may be learning something. There has to be some valid positive force in the universe.

Keep an open mind and it will all become clear.

Thanks

[ravinraven]

"Just one..... Animal, vegetable or mineral........100% reliability......one teensy weeensy example."

An example of a system that never failed: The Positive Control system that kept us from launching nuclear weapons inadvertently and getting humanity wiped out from about 1949 'til 1991 while we were staring down the USSR.

If that system had failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

rr

[Art Eatman]

One thing sometimes commented upon, thinking about centac's quite proper view of imperfection in our system, is that when some "imperfection" comes from Congress: Many times the only challenge which can be brought is AFTER breaking that law. "Legal standing to sue", etc.

So, two factors, with respect to possibly-unconstitutional gun laws exist. One is that the criminal penalties can be quite harsh, if you lose your appeal(s). The other is the cost to challenge the law, possibly all the way to SCOTUS.

Just sort of an additive point to ponder. To me, this is where a stubborn individual can make a difference...

Art

[Fletchette]

In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict 11-0.

:what:

What case was this?!? Sources?

[longrifleman]

Sorry to revive this thread after so long but I didn't have a chance to ask some questions while it was active. Somtimes I actually have to work for a living. :barf:

It is routine in our district, ND IL, ED, (Chicago), for the U.S.Atty to file a motion in limine just prior to trial requesting that the court order defense counsel to avoid any argument that might lead to jury nullification. This is routinely granted, even though it is a redundant request (our local rules of practice prohibit counsel from arguing for nullification.)

For our leagle beagle types: How is the history of nullification taught in law school? (I'm guessing Lysander Spooner isn't real popular with law perfessers.)

How do Judges square the precedents from the Supremes (and others) sited by others above with their instructions to the juries?

What would happen if a lawyer refused to accept the motion to avoid the nullification? Related question; how can the rules of practice prohibit something that has been advocated as part of common law since the Magna Carta?

When I see things like that I become convinced that the system IS rigged.



Jury trials occur in the minority of cases, and only upon defense motion.

My observation on this as a layman is that the state doesn't like the cost or uncertainty of a real trial so they do everything they can to discourage them. If you can blackmail a defendant into a plea it it so much cheaper and gives a better conviction rate to the prosecutor.

[spartacus2002]

For our leagle beagle types: How is the history of nullification taught in law school?

It generally isn't. Some law schools, I hear, teach lots of legal theory (I think UVA is like that). Most, however, just teach you how to be the rat running thru the maze.

[Fletchette]

Having been excluded from sitting on a jury recently, I really think we should change the law (pass an Amendment?) that forces a purely random jury selection - a "jury of peers" and not a hand-picked jury of people with limited experiences and like viewpoints.