Jury Nullification Law Signed by New Hampshire Governor

policemisconduct.net ^ | 27 June, 2012 | Tim Lynch

[knarf]

Yeah .. I’m I’m quite sure I’ll never be called, but I have the same tactic in mind.

[knarf]

Wha'chu'talk'n'bout, Willis?

If ONE juror stood firm with a nullification verdict over the other 11 .. guilty verdicts ... nullification wins ?

[HMS Surprise]

Typically the jury must be unanimous. So, if one juror decides that the law is unjust, unconstitutional, etc., he or she can vote to exonerate. You don’t have to give a reason as a juror, you can just vote not guilty and let the world wonder why you did it.

[A Strict Constructionist]

Lawyers and Judges have long overstepped their bounds by curtailing and designating what a Grand Jury and Jury have the right to do. I think Grand Juries need to tell DA’s and Judges go F off more often and use their investigatory power. Where they are in disuse they need to be brought back and begin to curb the power of the Judiciary by investigating it.

[A Strict Constructionist]

You are implying that you are not involved. You should demand that the Constitution be properly taught in every school. I would suspect Jesuit schools avoid it at all cost.

[The Antiyuppie]

“Profilers will keep you from ever serving ... you subversive, you ...”

Jurists are deliberately chosen by both sides to be stupid and pliable, under the guise of “having no preconceptions” and “flexibility”.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Imagine what would happen if jurors discovered that they can call and question witnesses”

I imagine they would discover that they were in the military and involved in a courts-martial under the UCMJ. The first time I testified in one I was really shocked when a Juror asked me a question. I think it is a very good idea. Cuts through the lawyers BS.

[OneWingedShark]

To grant it as a modified, statutory privilege to 14th Amendment corporate individuals who have no access to Constitutional rights.

You mean the amendment that doesn't exist?

[OneWingedShark]

I think Grand Juries need to tell DA’s and Judges go F off more often and use their investigatory power. Where they are in disuse they need to be brought back and begin to curb the power of the Judiciary by investigating it.

Yay Presentments!

(I totally agree.)

[itsahoot]

Obamacare is all about solidifying the poor and lower middle class into a permanent voting block for the democrats

Amen! Only reason to define a right is to be able to change it. Common Sense, in the political class, died about 100 years ago.

[Lancey Howard]

Great stuff.

BUMP

[djf]

Let us not forget the William Penn case.

From WIKI:

By the late 17th century, the court’s ability to punish juries was removed in Bushel’s Case[20] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without “meat, drink, fire and tobacco” to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury “absurd”, and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.[21] This series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification.[22] The particular case is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey) in London.

Personally, I consider this case and the cases about the fugitive slave laws to be the critical essence of nullification.

The jury comes to a conclusion:
Given the totality of the law and the facts, has a crime been committed?

If the question is answered in good conscience, and the answer is “NO”, then there can be no conviction.

[JimRed]

...would further back it up by requiring that all students must demonstrate proficiency in juror rights and duties before graduating.

We should all fear being tried by 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty! < /sarc >

[PapaBear3625]

If ONE juror stood firm with a nullification verdict over the other 11 .. guilty verdicts ... nullification wins ?

But, and this is the important part, you SHOULD NOT say nullification is your reason to vote not-guilty. Otherwise the judge might (and they sometimes do) remove that juror and replace him with an alternate.

Just say "The prosecution has not proved their case beyond my reasonable doubt". And nothing more.

[Still Thinking]

The Wentworth instruction is a very lame and indirect instruction that hinges on the word “should.” The trial judge tells the jury something like, “If the prosecution has met its legal burden, the jury should find the defendant guilty.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court says that since the word “should” is uttered, the jury is notified that even if the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, “they could still acquit the defendant.”

Well, you might be able to stretch that into a case that you've informed that jury nullification is possible (Duh!), but only if you admit you've simultaneously told them they're not supposed to do it ("shouldn't"). If they have that right, this argument is bogus. It's like saying you've informed people of their 2A rights by telling them they shouldn't CCW.

[Still Thinking]

I am concerned, however, that this language does not go far enough. We don’t know how much pressure trial judges will exert on defense counsel. As noted above, if the attorney’s argument is “too strenuous,” the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the law as described by the court, not the defense.

That was my immediate thought as well. The law should probably be amended to tell judges they're not allowed to issue instructions that appear to preclude nullification.

[Still Thinking]

I think Grand Juries need to tell DA’s and Judges go F off more often and use their investigatory power.

Agreed.

I believe the way the law is written in some states, the indictment power of the GJ is virtually unlimited. The DA naturally brings cases to them where he wants indictments, but in these states that isn't a necessary precondition to issuing one. I wouldn't mind seeing some ridiculous political and agenda-driven cases submitted by DA's result not only in failure to secure the indictment he wanted but an indictment issuing against HIM for violation of the civil rights of the accused and dereliction of the duties of his office (whatever is illegal in the state in question).

I'm also disgusted to see that in some cases, the prosecution can sidestep the GJ and charge on their own (see Zimmerman). What the hell is the point of having a GJ system if it's optional for the prosecution???

[A Strict Constructionist]

“What the hell is the point of having a GJ system if it’s optional for the prosecution???”

For political cover/PRN. Standard political prescription.

[OneWingedShark]

Just say "The prosecution has not proved their case beyond my reasonable doubt". And nothing more.

Or you could say: "This law is morally repugnant and I cannot n good consciousness vote to convict someone under it."
If the judge tries to dismiss you after hearing that, file charges and prosecute him for deprivation of rights under color of law.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

There is no exception for judges and Nullification is recognized under US Law (otherwise they'd have gotten rid of it). This is one way that we can fight back.

[HMS Surprise]

It is our system, and it has been thus for over 300 years, and you don’t seem to understand it... Do you wonder why?