There is no more morally righteous legal authority than a man's peers.
Don't be afraid to nullify collectivist, anonymous tyranny as an empowered individual.
Please.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 05/22/2010 6:22:22 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
Citizens can refuse to enforce laws enacted or supported by the Obama Regime
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona reports that the Obama Administration will now refuse to enforce our country's immigration laws in Arizona.
The Obama regime's decision to enforce laws selectively, or refuse to enforce laws it doesn't like, sets a good precedent for citizens who are chosen for jury duty to trash any Obama-supported law including mandatory participation in health insurance, cap and trade, and gun control. All it takes is for one person who doesn't like a law to hang a jury, thus wasting whatever resources the government put into the prosecution--and Constitutional precedent says that any citizen has not only the right but also the duty to nullify a law he thinks should not exist, or believes is being applied selectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
“Jury nullification”
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ....(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction....”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.
U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has....”unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”
OJ
See Patrick Henry and William Penn, by the way Jury Nullification should be taught to EVERY STUDENT IN EVERY GRADE LEVEL, Especially here in Arizona. Could you imagine what would happen if fedzilla was unable to EVER SECURE A CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FEDERAL TAXES.
If not, God is working in the minds of men.
Jury nullification is one of the most fundamental rights of a free person. Tell the judge that you believe in jury nullification and listen to his comments. If you think a law is unjust, you do not have to convict a person using it. I have used it several times when talking to prosecutors, lawyers, and judges.
If we return to informing juries of their rights, catchphrases like “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” will no longer have any effect on a jury decision.There will be no more past conviction records or evidence being ruled inadmissible like in the case of John Couey.
The 1895 Sparff VS The US decision is in my opinion the single worst supreme court decision of all time. It didn’t remove the power from the people but it allowed the court to forever hide the power from the people.
If you want to know your rights as a juror, see fija.org.
If you want to get out of jury duty, tell the judge and prosecutor you went to fija.org :-)
ping for later - hmmm
Moral: if you actually want to be on a jury, play dumb.
bump for later
Better be careful about telling other jurors about their rights as well. There was a guy near where I live who was arrested and charged with contempt a few years ago for handing out printed copies of juror rights.
They accused him of interfering with court proceedings despite the fact that he was on the sidewalk outside the building. They turned him loose a few days later and fined him for being a public nuisance.
Another good way to say that it is impossible for you to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant without actually hearing testimony from the defendant.
I told the defense attorney of a car theft suspect, after she stated that he would not take the stand, that if I was accused of a crime that I did not commit, that you could not keep me off the stand. I will declare my innocence out of my own mouth for everyone to hear, and if such an action landed me in jail, then so be it.
The judge was really mad, he said my stating such a thing was outrageous, and that the defendant had a right not to appear on the stand, to which I responded that’s fine, I also have the right not to believe his defense.
I was not selected.
There is no more morally righteous legal authority than a man's peers.
Don't be afraid to nullify collectivist, anonymous tyranny as an empowered individual.
Please.
The last thing judges want people to realize is that the judge is little more than a glorified mediator in a jury trial.
Yes, I’d have to say that he had a harder time mediating me. As I recall, this occurred a number of years ago, the judge being really mad said something along the lines of reprimanding me if I based my decision on whether or not a defendant testified or not.
But I was being as honest as I possibly could. I really wasn’t even trying to get out of the duty as this was my first ever call. To me, an attorney asking me to judge the guilt or innocence of a person without actually ever hearing a single word form that person is impossible, at least for me.
Essentially, if I was on trial, and I didn’t get on the stand to state in open court in front of my accuser that I am in fact innocent, then I would know that I was guilty.
I was on a jury recently and I’m betting that others that have served have had a similar experience. The judge quite specifically instructed us that we were not to use jury nullification. Didn’t matter to me, but I’m sure it cowed a lot of the other jurors. They try to stay on top of it these days.
“Jury nullification”
Two words that judges and prosecutors don’t want to hear.
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.