Jury Nullifacation

[brreitsma]

I don't know how many people know that much of what brought an end to prohibition was that it became increasingly difficult to the point of being almost impossible to find a jury that would bring a conviction any more.

The courts now days tell juries that they have to decide a case based on what current laws are without factoring in fairness and other concepts. This is not true. A juror has the right to judge the fairness and practicality etc. of a law and not find a person guilty if conscious won't allow.

This is interesting, many people feel that the congress, senate, courts and so on make the laws and citizens are helpless. This is not so. Laws can be overturned by independent citizens on juries repeatedly choosing over and over to nullify it. It establishes case history which is powerful.

Just think about a movement starting in the country where freedom and liberty minded folks started educating themselves, each other and the public at large more about this. The legal system wants people the masses ignorent of this amazing power in their hands. Imagine this pro-freedom and pro-liberty type libertarian leaning group coming up with a list of laws they would choose and agree to not convict defendents based upon. Say this group grew large enough that their was bound to be at least one on any and every jury.

It is hard to get enough of the public to vote in the proper candidates and chances are slim to none that we will ever get anything but the same old same old type judges and politicians. A large group however that would have enough size for at least one member to have a presence on just about every jury I feel is something that liberty minded folks could accomplish. With such a group we could successfully bring about truly positive and lasting change at a grass roots level.

[JJ Grandits]

Explaining that you understand jury nullification will pretty much keep you from ever doing jury duty. The DA will send you packing.

[willow_girl]

I read somewhere that in one area in (I think it was?) Tennessee, the prosecutor had stopped pursuing cases involving possession of marijuana because juries simply refused to convict anyone.

[brreitsma]

I have heard that the feds hate to have to bring any marijuina cases to trial in Kentucky which is part of the bible belt because it is almost impossible to get a conviction.

[brreitsma]

Explaining that you understand jury nullification will pretty much keep you from ever doing jury duty. The DA will send you packing.

Who is going to be stupid enough to reveal that they know about it to the DA.

[whodunit]

Originally Posted by brreitsma

Who is going to be stupid enough to reveal that they know about it to the DA.

Usually the attorneys get to examine and question prospective jurors (voir dire?), so if they ask you related questions, you'd likely have to lie to stay on.

[Ken Scharabok]

I don't know if it would be jury nullifacttion, such as in the OJ murder case, but I heard the local DA speak to a civil group. He said they are running into the "CSI" effect. That is there had better be absolutely, concrete DNA evidence before they would convict. Circumstantial doesn't cut it anymore.

[Forerunner]

The judges not only explain how the jurors must uphold the laws as they are given/written.....they invite them to swear to do so.
I wonder what would happen if a juror refused the oath ?

Excellent point, though.
This would be exactly the non-violent, non-confrontational way to facilitate change and transfer the power back.

[palani]

A single judge has no authority to decide anything but the amount of bail and whether to hold a defendant over for trial.

In law trials are held by two or more judges depending upon the nature and severity of the offense. At least one of these judges must be of the quorum (aka more learned in the law).

As all trials you are ever likely to see these days only have a single judge then you are observing equity in action and black-robed person seated 4 feet above the floor is a chancellor rather than a judge.

So, to the op, instructions from a chancellor to a lawful jury OUGHT to be considered advisory only rather than mandatory.

I would contend that the actual trial is the appeal, where you might have a panel of "judges" reviewing facts and law. But there are no guarantees of this either.

[Ken Scharabok]

Recently I came up in the jury duty pool. Judge instructed everyone at once in the group. Mainly you will be sworn to apply the law as it existed at the time. You may not use your personal opinions or familiarity of the defendant to sway your opinion. You may not take the defendant's personal appearance into consideration. You must make a decision on the evidence and testimony presented.

From the group he selected a Grand Jury, dismission several. Then allowed other remaining in the pool to ask to be excused. I did based on my poor hearing. I didn't feel it wouldn't be fair to a defendant if I couldn't hear all testimony. Short of a doctor's note, I had to sign an affidavid and it was filed.

The judge noted Humphries County is a fairly tight community and it might well be you know the defendant from some prior contact. He said he would weigh that on a case by case basis during jury selection.

[didaho]

I'm in the jury pool for July, boy I dread it.
I am having a hard time with the judging part. I do not like to judge people, it is God's job to judge a man if he has sinned not mine. I am the forgiving type. If I can't forgive someone of any wrong doing then how do I expect God to forgive me?
This is really bothering me.

[palani]

Originally Posted by didaho

I'm in the jury pool for July, boy I dread it.
I am having a hard time with the judging part. I do not like to judge people, it is God's job to judge a man if he has sinned not mine. I am the forgiving type. If I can't forgive someone of any wrong doing then how do I expect God to forgive me?
This is really bothering me.

Rest assured that no people are ever going to be judged by a jury. They are charged with listening to the facts as presented by either side and coming to a conclusion on the facts. The jury topic is only about "persons", aka 1)words, 2) actions or 3) representation. It is the "person" on trial not the man or woman; however, the man or woman gets to volunteer as surety for the "person".

There, I have said enough to taint you permanently.

[didaho]

yes you have and it does not help me one bit.

[MSMH]

Originally Posted by JJ Grandits

Explaining that you understand jury nullification will pretty much keep you from ever doing jury duty. The DA will send you packing.

Do they actually ask this question of prospective jurors for special trials such as tax evasion trials?

I was in a jury pool for a "person vs sheriff case," but I was not asked this question about whether I understood jury nullification.

The founding fathers did not think that all adult persons should be able to vote. Things have certainly changed since then. Even dead people vote now.

[MSMH]

Originally Posted by didaho

I'm in the jury pool for July, boy I dread it.
I am having a hard time with the judging part. I do not like to judge people, it is God's job to judge a man if he has sinned not mine. I am the forgiving type. If I can't forgive someone of any wrong doing then how do I expect God to forgive me?
This is really bothering me.

Christians are supposed to judge the actions of others with the Ten Commandments as a guideline, but Christians are not supposed to judge other persons' hearts' intentions as that is God's business only.

We cannot fulfill the following Scripture passage as commanded by Paul unless we first judge the actions of others and then based upon our judgment of their actions using Biblical guidelines, we are able to fulfill God's will accordingly: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

[FourDeuce]

Originally Posted by MSMH

Do they actually ask this question of prospective jurors for special trials such as tax evasion trials?

I was in a jury pool for a "person vs sheriff case," but I was not asked this question about whether I understood jury nullification.

The founding fathers did not think that all adult persons should be able to vote. Things have certainly changed since then. Even dead people vote now.

No, they would NEVER mention jury nullification if they can avoid it. They want to keep that "secret" as far from sight as possible. If they started asking people about it more people would know about it, and they REALLY want to avoid that. The PTB want to keep the illusion intact that all the power is in their hands. FIJA is online, though.

[mnn2501]

Originally Posted by didaho

I'm in the jury pool for July, boy I dread it.
I am having a hard time with the judging part. I do not like to judge people, it is God's job to judge a man if he has sinned not mine. .

Not true, everyone forgets that the very next verse is also included in that thought and that you must not take verse 1 out of its context.

Matt. 7: 1-5 (KJV)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

It really has nothing to do with court cases but is talking about feeling superior over someone else or gossiping about someone else or accusing someone when you have faults of your own.

Its always dangerous to take one verse out of context as in a case like this where you are afraid of jury duty when thats clearly NOT what was being discussed.

[MSMH]

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

No, they would NEVER mention jury nullification if they can avoid it. They want to keep that "secret" as far from sight as possible. If they started asking people about it more people would know about it, and they REALLY want to avoid that. The PTB want to keep the illusion intact that all the power is in their hands. FIJA is online, though.

I see. Thanks for the heads up on FIJA. I just looked it up -- Fully Informed Jury Assn. "(FIJA) is a non-profit organization aiming to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilties when serving as trial jurors."

[LaManchaPaul]

Originally Posted by didaho

I'm in the jury pool for July, boy I dread it.
I am having a hard time with the judging part. I do not like to judge people, it is God's job to judge a man if he has sinned not mine. I am the forgiving type. If I can't forgive someone of any wrong doing then how do I expect God to forgive me?
This is really bothering me.

Debbie, all who are charged are not guilty. All who are guilty are not charged. As a jury member you'll need to decide for yourself based on the information presented if the one that was charged is guilty. That is you must determine him or her to be 'guilty' by a standard of the evidence; such as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or ' perponderance of the evidence.' Because of our great system, the charged is presumed innocent.

If tables were turned and by the course of the wind, you had been charged; wouldn't you want 12 people who are able to function the way that you do?

Wouldn't you want 12 peers, not 12 who got stuck? It can be a great adventure as well as an eye opener as to how some things work and others are dreadfully broken.

[beowoulf90]

Originally Posted by brreitsma

Who is going to be stupid enough to reveal that they know about it to the DA.

It is on the form here. The question asks if we know what a fully informed jury is.

Of course if you answer yes it isn't likely that you will be called to serve on the jury, but if you answer no and then try to nullify (for lack of a better word) the jury. They will get you for falsification of a government document, lying!