Posted on 10/27/2021 10:34:59 AM PDT by WMarshal
The Constitution
The Founders view of the jury as being of paramount importance in defending liberty is easily seen when examining the words of the Constitution. There are only 14 words describing freedom of speech and of the press in the Constitution. But there are 186 words describing trial by jury in the Constitution. It is guaranteed in the main body in Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3, and in two amendments, the Sixth and the Seventh. No other right is mentioned so frequently, three times, or has as many words devoted to it. It is plain that the Founders viewed the jury trial right as the most important right since it gave birth to, and defended, all other rights. It should also be noted that trial by jury and jury nullification were common law rights at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and so are also included as rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment.
For anyone to assert after Zenger, the Navigation Act cases, the Declaration of Independence, and the great volume of language about the jury in the Constitution that the Founders would intend the jury to be a mere factfinder that must blindly follow the law as dictated by a judge is to fly directly in the face of logic and history. It is also to fly directly against the explicit words of the Founders about the jury's role.
"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 it's constitution."
Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence and Third President, in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 15, p. 269, Princeton University Press, 1958
"It is not only his right [the juror's], but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
John Adams, first proponent of the Declaration of
Independence and Second President, 1771
2 Life And Works of John Adams 253-255 (C.F. Adams ed. 1856)
"You [the jurors] have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, charging the jury in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dallas 1, 4 (U.S. 1794)
"That in criminal cases, the law and fact being always blended, the jury, for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, is intrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact."
Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury People v. Croswell, 3 Johns Cas. 361, 362 (1804) as reprinted in Sparf and Hansen v. United States,
156 U.S. at 147-148, dissenting opinion, (1895)
Arguing Nullification to the Jury
In the Zenger case, defense attorney Andrew Hamilton argued to the jury in contradiction of the judge that truth is or should be a defense to a charge of seditious libel, that the jury has the power and right to judge the law, that the jury should take as the strongest evidence for Zenger the fact that Zenger's proposed evidence of truth had been suppressed by the judge, and that Bushell's Case established the right of the jury to vote its conscience.
"The right of the Jury, to find such a verdict as they in their conscience do think is agreeable to their evidence, is supported by the authority of Bushell's case."
defense attorney Andrew Hamilton, arguing to the jury
The right to disregard the law if you morally disagree with it also comes from the fact that jurors are sovereign in this area and cannot be punished for the verdict they render, no matter how unpopular it is to the general public or the specific judge presiding over the case. Also, defendants found not guilty cannot be retried for the same crime. Hence, once a jury finds a defendant not guilty, there is no mechanism for a prosecutor to bring the case against the same defendant again.
Wanna get out of jury duty?
Just let them know you believe in Jury Nullification.
The jury instructions will often include that the jury should only base there decision on the facts and then they will give the law as written.
The jury has the right and duty to judge both fact and law, and yes, I have been dismissed for saying that.
The other agency of the people that needs to be recognized is the independence of the grand jury. A grand jury need not limit itself to investigating what the prosecutor sets before it. It can lead an investigation to wherever it wants, the objections of the prosecutor notwithstanding.
Do we want juries in Washington DC ruling us? That would expose any federal politician to arrest and a show trial conviction.
For example...if I was ever a juror in a case involving a so called " hate crime" I'd vote "not guilty" on any charge that's labeled as such. Why? Because I absolutely reject the very concept of hate crimes. If the case is a white guy assaulting a black guy....with no justification...if the evidence supported it I'd vote "guilty" of assault and,perhaps,other things as well. But I don't give a rat's hindquarters whether he assaulted the guy because he was black...or because his wife had just left him.
It never got that far with me. I realized this when I was 1987 that if I just didn't acknowledge it ever received the jury summons there's no legal way to punish me because if it just comes in the mail and it is not delivered by a process server then it is not an legally enforceable court document. I just waited the dumb bastards out.
Now that I am older I think I will start answering jury summons. I have some "nullificating" to do if the situation calls for it.
I would answer a jury summons. Been called twice and never selected. It just seems to be the right thing to do.
Well, of course.
Nullification is loose cannon; neither Prosecution nor Defense can predict the response, so one or the other will strike someone who support nullification.
When I was 20 I couldn’t afford the $5 a day jury pay. I would’ve starved to death before a trial lasted a week. When I get out of grad school with a masters degree in computing in the mid 90s and escaped student poverty I was making over $100 an hour and I was not giving that up either. One hour work was more that 20 days of jury duty.
Okay.
Place I worked would have made up the difference, but I see your point.
A hung jury accomplishes the same to the nullifyer
Dunno. Can’t the prosecutor go after defendant again if the result is a hung jury?
Dunno. Can’t the prosecutor go after defendant again if the result is a hung jury?
Probably, but would he dare after all the publicity in the local paper about what just happened ?
I am in a salaried position a government-tit sucking pharma company now and they pay for me to go to jury duty so I’m all up for it. I am totally OK with using their grifter money to support my activism.
I think so.
To these people, the process is the punishment.
However, the judge has the right to set aside a jury verdict.
“However, the judge has the right to set aside a jury verdict.”
In criminal cases, only guilty verdicts.
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.