After The Fall Of Justice

Hypothetical,

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?

 

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.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

Or perhaps a little too much John Jay (you know, the former Chief Justice):

(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):

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):

And if you don't like that one, there's always US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113 (1972)

(BTW, that last one was not a trial court, it was a Circuit Court of Appeals, inferior only to SCOTUS.)



Shall I go on?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

Bill said,

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?

 

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?

 

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

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.

 

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 with my morning java, I'm not really in jovial mood anymore.

 

centac:

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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".

 

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?

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.

 

Centac:

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?!?!?!?!?

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