Jury Nullification : The Top Secret Constitutional Right[PDF]
It hasnt passed yet.
Just another indication of how insane this country has become.
It completely changes the meaning of words guilty or innocent.
If it does pass:
It Should give the jurors three possible verdicts that they can choose from :Guilty, guilty but nullified, and innocent.
Awesome links, thanks!
In the two trials on which I sat on the jury in the mid-1980’s, we didn’t need a judge to tell us. As soon as the jury sat down I told them. And it’s simple: Nobody is allowed, in their official capacity, to ask an individual juror what facts of the case led them to their verdict. All they can ask you is if in fact your personal verdict is the same as the one given on your behalf by the jury foreman. I believe they can also ask if you were coerced, but that is another issue.
This means it is completely legal for you to find for the defense because you happen to know that the prosecuting attorney is sleeping with your wife.
bkmk
As a matter of ultimate civic protection against the state, a jury trial has inherent merits of nullification, which is easily done without a stated justifiation. A juror will be challenged by the other jurors if they are out of line on their reasoning; but the greater number of jurors acting to nullify, the less argument there is.
Fair warning, the last time jury nullification was used in a widespread manner was during prohibition.
The judiciary responded with the use of the injunction, which created rules around a suspect so tight that it was hard not to break them. If the suspect did break them, he would not get a jury trial, but appear before the same judge on a charge of contempt of court, for which he could get a long time in jail.
Importantly, injunction rules violate all kinds of constitutional protections. They can prohibit the use of a phone, or a vehicle to travel, free association with a listed group of individuals, living in certain neighborhoods, traveling certain routes, ownership of a list of things associated with the crime they have not been convicted of, etc.
Many jurors are unaware of the enormous power they have received. This is likely a result of a faulty public school system turning out low information Americans.
The jury is the only entity in the courtroom that has the power to judge both the evidence and the law. The Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Defense can judge the evidence but only a juror has the power to judge the evidence and the law.
If it is such a dangerous notion, why is already law? Telling a jury what they should already know is not dangerous. However, it is sad that we need a law to help them complete what they should have learned in High School.
Don’t lose sight of what is “nullified”.
And here I clicked on this thread hoping to see hot women mug shots.
One oddity about Stalinist Maryland is that it is the only state constitution which explicitly codifies jury nullification. No officer of the court mentions this and I suspect any defense attorney would be held in Contempt of Court if they were to mention it.
Some years ago I was in a jury pool and during “voir dire” (that’s French for “jury tampering by the judge and lawyers”) we were asked by the presiding judge if anyone had a problem with accepting his instructions on the law. up went my hand. Called to the bench, I explained to the judge that the Maryland Constitution expressly empowered ME with interpreting the law, not him. He laughed and agreed, and BOTH lawyers struck me from the jury pool.
Minutes later, out the door I went.