Jury Nullification

This is a discussion on Jury Nullification within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I didn't want to further hijack another thread where this subject was brought up in regards to a gun case. I'd like to know from ...

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 123

Thread: Jury Nullification

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298

    Jury Nullification

    I didn't want to further hijack another thread where this subject was brought up in regards to a gun case.

    I'd like to know from those against it what is the difference between a show trial put on by some countries and a jury here blindly following the Governments wishes? If you know a law to be unjust would you still sentence someone to prison?

    You are on a jury and a man is on trial for hiding a run away slave. Do you convict the person because the Government say you must uphold the Run away slave Law? Do you in effect nullify the law by voting innocent?

    If you vote to convict you are allowing the system to work. Maybe while he is in prison people will see his case and demand the laws be changed because of it. Maybe in 20 or 30 years the law will be changed and maybe he will be released if the government doesn't object. Or maybe he dies in prison.

    Michael

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array gaowlpoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Perry, GA
    Posts
    68
    I am not totally familiar with everything about court proceedings, but from what I understand, here in Georgia if a jury considers a law to be wrong or unjust, the law can be thrown out, essentially nullifying it and dismissing the case.

    I know several people that when called up for jury duty carry a small pamphlet with them that describes this process. Apparently the DA's are familiar with the pamphlet and will not select anyone for duty that has one.
    Steven
    The "news media" has ceased being the watch dog of the people and has become the apologist for an irresponsible government.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by gaowlpoop View Post
    I am not totally familiar with everything about court proceedings, but from what I understand, here in Georgia if a jury considers a law to be wrong or unjust, the law can be thrown out, essentially nullifying it and dismissing the case.

    I know several people that when called up for jury duty carry a small pamphlet with them that describes this process. Apparently the DA's are familiar with the pamphlet and will not select anyone for duty that has one.
    Prosecuters won't allow anyone on a jury that even admits having heard of it.

    Michael

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,695
    Here's some info on the subject:
    Jury Nullification and the 2nd Amendment
    A Program For Rights Restoration
    by Guy Smith

    Introduction

    “ . . . it is not only [the juror’s] 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.”-John Adams, 1771

    You have the ability to overturn any anti-gun law you want. All it takes is a bit of knowledge and a seat 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. And you thought the game was rigged! It is. It is rigged in favor of the average citizen.

    History of jury nullification

    “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, 1794

    The concept of jury nullification was present in English common law and exercised in America before the revolution.

    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. Zenger was not the last of the pre-revolution citizens to defeat the crown through nullification. Indeed the practice was regularly exercised both before and after the revolution. Understanding nullification was merely part of being properly educated in civics.

    So, why have we not heard more about nullification?

    It is hard to pin down when the courts began to obscure this right of yours. In the 1800’s (as well as at other points in history) people have tried to “reform” the jury system. These schemes included such mind numbing concepts as not requiring a unanimous verdict to convict, requiring less than a jury of twelve, and even “professional jurors” paid salaries by the government (I wish I was making that last one up, but some citizens are indeed that short sighted and drug addled).

    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 here 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)

    How it applies to the 2nd Amendment

    Jury nullification may be our best tool to reverse the tide of invasive gun control laws. At the very least, it may save some citizens from the ravages of Constitution bashers.

    According to noted criminologist Gary Kleck, about one-half of all households own guns. This means that one-half of all potential jurors own guns. Statistically speaking, this means that just about any jury can be “hung,” requiring a new trial, plenty of publicity, and another chance at nullification.

    And we seem to have the public on our side. Many public opinion polls from 1999 through 2001 show that the majority of Americans favor tougher laws on criminals, and fewer gun control laws. This may be because at least half of all jurors live in homes with guns present, or it may just be the good common sense of the average Joe. Either way, in the jury room, you will at least have six people on your side or leaning your direction. More importantly, it offers us the chance to educate others in the jury deliberation room. If you find yourself on a jury, and you determine that the law in question is a violation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, then you can vote to acquit based on nullification. You also have the right to educate the other jurors on nullification, the origins of the 2nd Amendment, and why they too should opt for nullification.

    Action you can take

    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 2nd 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 new found 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.

    Conclusion

    “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

    We have fought in the ballot box. We have fought in the legislature. We have fought in rally lines, town hall meetings, and the editorial pages. But we have ignored the ability to change the law using tools our founding fathers have given us! And it is a tool that the gun grabbers cannot overcome. Know it and if given the chance, exercise it.

    For more information on jury nullification, contact the Fully Informed Jury
    Association at Fully Informed Jury Association
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  6. #5
    Member
    Array GBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    468
    Tremendous question, the replys have been tremendous answers.

    There is a powerful concept that most schools do not even mention in these times. Natural Law. Would I convict someone charged with not filling out an invasive census form? Probably not, because this is a human punitive law. Man’s law is flawed from the outset, Natural law is immutable, and we are all answerable to it. It really is that voice that says what is right and what is less than honorable. What it comes down to is: I, a jury member do not leave my common sense outside the door on the courthouse steps.

    Natural Law is quite a concept and is well worth the research time.

  7. #6
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Jury nullification subverts the judicial system and undermines of the rule of law.

    Any juror who knowingly ignores the law should be held in contempt of court.

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    Jury nullification subverts the judicial system and undermines of the rule of law.
    Exactly. Sometimes it needs to be subverted.


    Any juror who knowingly ignores the law should be held in contempt of court.
    Unless the law is unjust, and then the law itself shall be held in contempt by those that nullify it.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #8
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Unless the law is unjust, and then the law itself shall be held in contempt by those that nullify it.
    And who determines if the law is unjust? You? A random sample of society?

    I'm certain you are familiar with the concept of due process. Is it due process to have two people, each guilty of violating the law, one set free and another serving the sentence mandated by law?

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,967
    Well, if you think the law is unjust, that is your opinion. I might disagree. The way we normally settle issues like this is through the political process.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    And who determines if the law is unjust? You? A random sample of society?

    I'm certain you are familiar with the concept of due process. Is it due process to have two people, each guilty of violating the law, one set free and another serving the sentence mandated by law?
    So in answer to my original post you would convict the person hiding the run away slave?

    Michael

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array cwblanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by GBS View Post
    Would I convict someone charged with not filling out an invasive census form? Probably not, because this is a human punitive law.
    I suggest that the real test is whether you are willing to commit perjury when being questioned as a juror about your scruples against "invasive census forms" and whether you are willing to follow the court's instructions.

    As a trial lawyer I do not hold perjurors in high esteem regardless of the merits of my case.

  13. #12
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    So in answer to my original post you would convict the person hiding the run away slave?
    Personally, I would be sad and morally outraged. But that is secondary to my obligation, duty, and sworn oath.

    I would convict without a second thought.

    For an in depth discussion of jury nullification there are two threads.

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...cussion-2.html


    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...cealed-10.html

    It would be far better to reopen one or both than start anew.

  14. #13
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    And who determines if the law is unjust? You? A random sample of society?
    Thats right, me...the juror, along with 11 other jurors. We are supposed to be the "random sample" of society.

    I'm certain you are familiar with the concept of due process. Is it due process to have two people, each guilty of violating the law, one set free and another serving the sentence mandated by law?
    It would be due process if the jury decided to let one go free and the other to serve the sentence depending on the circumstances involved.

    The juror is the ONLY check and balance against a corrupt and abusive government. As this current government continues on its crusade to socialize the United States and do everything within its power to crush the principals that this country was founded on, it becomes more important for people to understand this.

    I am quite certain, that some are not capable of grasping that simple concept.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,807
    There is a law which is higher than the man-made laws we have. It is the law of nature and nature's God. I read that somewhere.

    I am bound by that law, and any 'unlawful' human regulation which contradicts such a law I am honor-bound to ignore, if not defy.

    The same would be true in the jury box.

    Slavery. Against the laws of nature and nature's God.
    Therefore, illegal according to that law, regardless of the laws of the state.

    I would argue and vote accordingly.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  16. #15
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    There is a law which is higher than the man-made laws we have. It is the law of nature and nature's God. I read that somewhere.

    I am bound by that law, and any 'unlawful' human regulation which contradicts such a law I am honor-bound to ignore, if not defy.

    Amen brother!

    Glad to see that someone else understands that.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nullification: Twenty-five States With Firearms Freedom Acts
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 11:58 AM
  2. Jury Scams
    By Rob99VMI04 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 1st, 2008, 10:18 PM
  3. Trial by Jury & Jury Nulification -- Poll
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 9th, 2008, 08:57 PM
  4. Jury Nullification Discussion
    By BlackPR in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: May 5th, 2008, 09:14 PM
  5. Jury duty
    By rocky in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 14th, 2006, 10:23 AM

Search tags for this page

history of gun confiscation

,

illegal to throw a tainted pickle out the window

,

jury selection questions have to answer

,

reverse jury nullification

Click on a term to search for related topics.