Posted on 12/13/2011 9:08:05 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Prosecutors in New York City have decided that the dissemination of truth near American courthouses threatens to rock the very foundations of the American legal system.
For years, retired Penn State chemistry professor Julian Heicklen has handed out literature to passersby in front of the Manhattan courthouse, informing them of the rights of jurors.
As stated by the Fully Informed Jury Association, “the primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.”
And as John Adams 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.”
In short, trial by jury offers the final means by which the American people may militate against an unfair law.
And if jurors indeed find a law to be unjust or improperly applied, it is their absolute right to ignore any directions given them by a judge and vote to acquit the defendant.
But federal prosecutors do not agree that jurors should be imbued with such power, nor do they consider it appropriate that meddlers like Julian Heinklen should make the common folk aware of their right to so willfully check the advance of tyranny.
So after indicting the old professor in February, last month prosecutors deigned to inform Heicklen of the charges against him, stating “…advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections NO MATTER WHERE IT OCCURRED ( my caps).” “His speech is not protected by the first amendment,” writes prosecutor Rebecca Mermelstein.
Needless to say, jury nullification has been...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Jury nullification got OJ off.
Rascism got OJ off.
Empowered citizen juries would undermine the prestige and power of attornies; therefore, they must be gelded.
More like out and out INCOMPETENCE by the DA’s office, however, this will go nowhere, there are numerous Supreme Court Decisions regarding the Rights of a Juror and they do not help the Tyrannical Government.
“Jury nullification got OJ off.”
And for the sake of one jury that was making a race-based rebuttal to the establishment, we should dismiss the power and rights of the jury to seek justice? That is silly.
In important ways, the independent jury is a Fourth Branch of our Constitutional Republic. The reason is that no person can be convicted of a serious crime unless their offense is voted on by two citizen juries, the grand for indictment and the petit jury at trial.
The jury’s verdict is generally considered sacrosanct and it is the final wall that prevents runaway government. When government decrees that a jury only can have the power to decide the facts, then government could make breathing a felony and the jury would only be allowed to decide of the defendant had been breathing. It is essential that the jury be free to convict or acquit as it sees fit as a consequence of what was presented to it.
In essence, the role of the jury is to convict those who are truly guilty of the crime charged (in all what that implies), or to refuse to convict.
see: www.fija.org.
So..
When it goes to trial, will he be requesting a jury trial?
From what I’ve read, the prosecution is trying to deny him a jury trial.
Hey guys, OJ “got off” because of the pitiful case the prosecution put on, it had not hing to do with racism or jury nullification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.