Booklet to jurors promotes 'jury nullification,' 'God's law'

AZCentral.com ^ | Oct 1, 1002 | Associated Press

[microgood]

GOLDEN, Colo. - A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.

Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.

[thoughtomator]

No surprise that the powers that be fear jury nullification of tyrannical law.

[onedoug]

It's against CA law to nullify. Though put me on a gun-grab case and see what happens.

[Servant of the 9]

It's against CA law to nullify. Though put me on a gun-grab case and see what happens.

They would have to prove that you did not have reasonable doubt.
Impossible to do unless you confess.

So9

[Orangedog]

It's against CA law to nullify.

I'll bet OJ is glad his jury didn't believe that.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't have any problem with the Treasurer feeling that way, given his beliefs. Having said that, I would fire him immediately. He should go into politics and push his beliefs in that venue, not as a paid governmental employee. I was sure the Republican Party strongly believed in the rule of law. As a juror, if I couldn't raise my hand and swear to uphold the law and perform my duties to the best of my abilities, "so help me God' because of the issue at hand, then I simply would decline to serve.

[Protagoras]

I have been called for jury duty in October for the second time in three months. The first time was for "standby" service and I didn't have to go. This time it's for regular service.

I would gladly nullify if the circumstances warranted it, but the fact is, I will never be picked for a jury. The questionaire answers will never allow it. So it's just a wasted day of my life courtesy of the government. The notice comes complete with threats BTW.

[Nephi]

I was sure the Republican Party strongly believed in the rule of law.

You were right. Jurors are the final arbiter of the law.

[MACVSOG68]

You were right. Jurors are the final arbiter of the law.

I wonder...would some nullifications be acceptable, say if someone is charged with assaulting an abortion provider, while others would be unacceptable, say a jury finding Mumia Abu Jamal innocent? What if a jurist doesn't necessarily believe in a higher law (God), but feels his moral beliefs are higher than the law, such as ELF or other such terrorists? What if the higher law was Islamic? It is an unbelievably slippery slope that can expand into areas Christians such as the Treasurer would not be very happy with.

No, this man is very dangerous, because he attacks not only the law itself, but the very system of justice (no matter how flawed) that, thank God, sets us apart from much of the world.

[Howlin]

I agree with you 100 percent.

He should be removed immediately.

Then he can hand out all the booklets he wants to.

[Lurker]

Jury nullification is the last second to last bastion we have against a tyrannical government.

I got the opportunity to refuse to convict on a marijuana 'possession with intent' case. God it felt good to just say 'not guilty' a couple of hundred times until the other jurors gave up.

As far as getting past the voire doir (sic?) part of it when they ask you if you can 'follow the law and the judges instructions only' I did the only thing I could.

I lied and said 'yes I can.'

Now, I'm hoping to get called for an 'illegal gun' case next, or maybe a tax evasion case, or maybe an 'environmental crime' case.....

L

[MACVSOG68]

Now, I'm hoping to get called for an 'illegal gun' case next, or maybe a tax evasion case, or maybe an 'environmental crime' case.....

Or maybe a Wahabbi Muslim charged with murdering Americans....?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Interesting, in my fine home state of Indiana, jury nullification is accepted and argued by attorneys; indeed, jury nullification is even written into our constitution as the right of the jury.

As an aside, FIJA has been doing similar things for years, but, of course, they aren't state officials.

[microgood]

No, this man is very dangerous, because he attacks not only the law itself, but the very system of justice (no matter how flawed) that, thank God, sets us apart from much of the world.

Not so sure about that. I read quite a bit on the net about Jury nullification and it has been part of law for a long time. It is only in the last 100 to 150 years that the judges have decided to seize power from the juries and place it in their own hands. There is no basis in law for the oath they make you take but just a power grab on the judge's part. In the past judges were basically referees. Now they seek an active part in the outcome by trying to influence juries. But there is no obligation to listen to the judge's instructions at all. It is just too bad they kick you off juries if they think you know your rights and obligations as a juror.

Opponents say that it prevents equal treatment under the law but I do not think we get that anyway when you are at the whim of a judge or prosecutor- which can be just as arbitrary.

[c-b 1]

Jury nullification is the last second to last bastion we have against a tyrannical government.

Some here have no idea what you are saying.

[MACVSOG68]

There is no basis in law for the oath they make you take but just a power grab on the judge's part. In the past judges were basically referees. Now they seek an active part in the outcome by trying to influence juries. But there is no obligation to listen to the judge's instructions at all. It is just too bad they kick you off juries if they think you know your rights and obligations as a juror.

Why even bother with presenting the elements of a crime? One thing for sure, the prisons would be emptied out. Lurker would not convict anyone in a drug, gun or enviro-terrorism case; The Treasurer in the article would definitely not convict anyone involved in anti-abortion activities; I would imagine a minority (if told the evidence and law were not critical) would acquit any minority in any criminal prosecution; A Muslim would certainly not convict a fellow Muslim; A poor person could easily find a burgler not guilty if the victim were rich; Have I left anyone out?

[Viva Le Dissention]

I think you're blowing this a little out of proportion--again, in Indiana, jury nullification is written into our constitution as the right of the jury, and, you know what? The sky hasn't fallen here. We still have lots of people in jail--in fact, the county jail for Indianapolis is over capacity.

Jury nullification IS rooted in historical practice. I personally tend to think it's a good thing. And it's seemingly worked just fine in practice; we're still here, and VA hasn't even tried to annex us in something like 200 years.

[c-b 1]

No, this man is very dangerous, because he attacks not only the law itself, but the very system of justice (no matter how flawed) that, thank God, sets us apart from much of the world.

The judges who legislate from the bench, sending us rapidly toward a corrupt third world judicial system aren't dangerous? I believe his purpose is to teach a way around them.

[microgood]

One thing for sure, the prisons would be emptied out.

Theoretically this is true. But nullification has not really been abused over the centuries so maybe juries know when a law is agregious or the prosecutor is out to get someone for personal reasons and when the law should be applied as is. Prohibition and slavery were examples of that. I think most people will try to be fair in juries and are honest when asked questions about a case during selection. After all, legislatures pass laws all the time that they know are unconstitutional (like 99.99% of all federal laws) so we need something to fight back with.

[MACVSOG68]

Jury nullification IS rooted in historical practice. I personally tend to think it's a good thing. And it's seemingly worked just fine in practice; we're still here, and VA hasn't even tried to annex us in something like 200 years.

As long as you can accept nullifications from groups not necessarily within your moral sphere, your opinion is certainly as good as mine. But I would still immediately fire the man.