V4Vendetta
member
I'm not sure if anyone else knows about this so I thought I'd post it seeing as how it is so important if any of us are ever on a jury.
"In our legal system, juries have a power known as “nullification”. This means that any single juror may refuse to convict a defendant of a crime if that juror believes the law in question is unconstitutional. In effect, a jury can overturn any act of congress or any decision of the Supreme Court.
In London, William Penn was tried in 1671 for the crime of preaching an “illegal” religion. His jury was rightfully incensed and refused to convict him, despite being denied by the court food, water and toilet facilities for several days. The jury was later fined and imprisoned for failing to convict Penn until England’s highest court confirmed their right to nullify the law. And you thought our legal system was heavy handed!
In one of the more famous American instances, John Peter Zenger was acquitted of a seditious liable charge against the Royal Governor of New York (no, not Pataki – someone much more level headed and just). Zenger had published a number of articles critical of the Governor, and had the audacity of using facts to support his claims. The crown arrested and tried him in 1734.
You might say the court, being an appointment by the crown, was less than helpful to Zenger’s cause. The judge told the jury that “Truth is no defense.” In other words, it did not matter if what Zenger had printed was true, it was against the law to print those truths, and the jury was told to disregard this particular nit-pick. Fortunately for Zenger, he had Andrew Hamilton as his attorney. Hamilton told the jury the story of William Penn and how they had the power to acquit Zenger. The Zenger jury followed suit.
In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors need not be told that they have this power. At this time, the once standard procedure of educating jurors about all of their options began to decay. Judges have been known to reprimand attorneys for reminding jurors of their right, and because of this many otherwise competent defense attorneys refuse to do so.
The situation has devolved to the point where the California Supreme Court
(a body not known for their adherence to traditional thinking on the topic of law, the constitution, or sanity) recently upheld the dismissal of a juror who was exercising his rights. Thankfully all other courts remain supportive of this fundamental precept of American law. As recently as 1972, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted: “ . . . unreviewable and irreversible . . . power to acquit in disregard of the instructions 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. . .” (473 F. 2d 1113) John Jay
As you can imagine, this is not as easy as it sounds. The tough part will be getting on the jury. Lawyers, regardless of if they represent the defendant or the government, will avoid mentioning nullification. The District Attorney doesn’t want the jury to know they have this power, and the defense attorney doesn’t want to violate any of the judge’s prohibitions on the subject. Your first course of action is to shut up! You are under no obligation to tell either attorney anything they do not inquire about. If they don’t ask your opinion about the 2 nd Amendment, then don’t get tossed off the jury by volunteering a patriotic monolog on the subject during jury selection. Likewise, unless specifically asked about your understanding of the concept of jury nullification, then keep off the subject. But a prosecuting attorney may ask questions that probe the subject. Never, under any circumstance lie about your opinions or knowledge. Doing so is wrong, illegal, and merely
drops you to the level of the gun grabbers. But listen to the questions carefully, and answer in a way that is truthful yet avoids disclosing your newfound education on the function of the jury in rectifying the constitution.
Finally, you may have a tough time in the jury room. Judges have become fond of falsely instructing jurors that they must decide a case based solely on “the facts.” The other eleven jurors may take this literally given the widespread ignorance about jury nullification. It is not advised that you take literature about nullification into the jury room, but you can be authoritative and take this knowledge with you to educate others.
See the following link for more information.
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
"In our legal system, juries have a power known as “nullification”. This means that any single juror may refuse to convict a defendant of a crime if that juror believes the law in question is unconstitutional. In effect, a jury can overturn any act of congress or any decision of the Supreme Court.
In London, William Penn was tried in 1671 for the crime of preaching an “illegal” religion. His jury was rightfully incensed and refused to convict him, despite being denied by the court food, water and toilet facilities for several days. The jury was later fined and imprisoned for failing to convict Penn until England’s highest court confirmed their right to nullify the law. And you thought our legal system was heavy handed!
In one of the more famous American instances, John Peter Zenger was acquitted of a seditious liable charge against the Royal Governor of New York (no, not Pataki – someone much more level headed and just). Zenger had published a number of articles critical of the Governor, and had the audacity of using facts to support his claims. The crown arrested and tried him in 1734.
You might say the court, being an appointment by the crown, was less than helpful to Zenger’s cause. The judge told the jury that “Truth is no defense.” In other words, it did not matter if what Zenger had printed was true, it was against the law to print those truths, and the jury was told to disregard this particular nit-pick. Fortunately for Zenger, he had Andrew Hamilton as his attorney. Hamilton told the jury the story of William Penn and how they had the power to acquit Zenger. The Zenger jury followed suit.
In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors need not be told that they have this power. At this time, the once standard procedure of educating jurors about all of their options began to decay. Judges have been known to reprimand attorneys for reminding jurors of their right, and because of this many otherwise competent defense attorneys refuse to do so.
The situation has devolved to the point where the California Supreme Court
(a body not known for their adherence to traditional thinking on the topic of law, the constitution, or sanity) recently upheld the dismissal of a juror who was exercising his rights. Thankfully all other courts remain supportive of this fundamental precept of American law. As recently as 1972, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted: “ . . . unreviewable and irreversible . . . power to acquit in disregard of the instructions 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. . .” (473 F. 2d 1113) John Jay
As you can imagine, this is not as easy as it sounds. The tough part will be getting on the jury. Lawyers, regardless of if they represent the defendant or the government, will avoid mentioning nullification. The District Attorney doesn’t want the jury to know they have this power, and the defense attorney doesn’t want to violate any of the judge’s prohibitions on the subject. Your first course of action is to shut up! You are under no obligation to tell either attorney anything they do not inquire about. If they don’t ask your opinion about the 2 nd Amendment, then don’t get tossed off the jury by volunteering a patriotic monolog on the subject during jury selection. Likewise, unless specifically asked about your understanding of the concept of jury nullification, then keep off the subject. But a prosecuting attorney may ask questions that probe the subject. Never, under any circumstance lie about your opinions or knowledge. Doing so is wrong, illegal, and merely
drops you to the level of the gun grabbers. But listen to the questions carefully, and answer in a way that is truthful yet avoids disclosing your newfound education on the function of the jury in rectifying the constitution.
Finally, you may have a tough time in the jury room. Judges have become fond of falsely instructing jurors that they must decide a case based solely on “the facts.” The other eleven jurors may take this literally given the widespread ignorance about jury nullification. It is not advised that you take literature about nullification into the jury room, but you can be authoritative and take this knowledge with you to educate others.
See the following link for more information.
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm