New ways to break the law! (are you a criminal? Probably)

http://www.theadvocates.org ^ | Bill Winter

[null and void]

post number 75!!!

[SUSSA]

Yep. Juries don't get to decide questions of law. They get to decide questions of fact. And they may determine that the accused did not commit the crime with which he is charged.

######

That’s what statist judges want people to think. However, the truth is the jury has the power and the duty to judge of both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

[Gordongekko909]

That’s what statist judges want people to think. However, the truth is the jury has the power and the duty to judge of both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

Except... no. If the jury does anything aside from act as a trier of fact, they have to do it under the radar. It's the legislature's job to make laws, and judges' job to interpret them. Any duty that a jury has to make judgments of law comes from some "higher law" source, not from anything you'll actually find in a statute.

[SUSSA]

While a juror might decide on his own that he would vote not guilty because he did not agree with the law, that does not mean the jury has the legal right to challenge the validity of the law.

####

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

In fact, the instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

[dljordan]

"Legislators need to be paid for taking laws off the books."

Legislators need to be beaten with large sticks from time to time.

[null and void]

'Course that is soooooo 19th century.

We have a Living Constitution and Living Gods in black robes now...

[abner]

I think about that every day... Unfortunately, the system is a joke.

[SUSSA]

They have to act under the radar because judges abuse their power. They have the right and duty to judge both but must get past the judges who abuse their office.

[Gordongekko909]

Citation, please.

[estrogen]

My son got a ticket in Athens Ohio (Ohio University) on a weekend visit for "walking while intoxicated" Go figure

[SUSSA]

Our responsibility is to find ways to get around those judges and do our duty.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Born criminals are some of the most danagerious types of people there are because they have no guilt in being criminals because the government deemed them criminals for simply existing.

[null and void]

Yes it is our duty.

[SUSSA]

State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). February 1794

[BenLurkin]

When was the last jury trial before SCOTUS?

[SUSSA]

Alcohol prohibition was repealed in large part because juries stopped convicting bootleggers for just possession and sale. If juries stopped convicting on seatbelt laws, etc. they would soon be repealed.

[Gordongekko909]

Juries have a de facto *ability* to do that. They have no *right*, let alone a *duty*, based in law. Sparf v. US, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).

Any *right* or *duty* to engage in jury nullification arises from a "higher law" analysis, not in the laws of man.

[BenLurkin]

"In order to graduate from law school, you have to shed every ounce of common sense you have and think in a very mechanical way."

It is less than that . . . and more.

[SUSSA]

you've got me.

[null and void]

ummmm, that was sooooo 18th century...

Yeah, that's what I meant, that's the ticket...