Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by The FRugitive
I just got called for jury duty for the first time.
I'm curious about jury nullification in case I get picked and get a consensual "criminal" case (tax evasion, drug posession, gun law violation, etc.). What would I need to know?
This could be my chance to stick it to the man. ;)
(Of course if I were to get a case of force or fraud I would follow the standing law.)
Exactly. Who most corrupts objective law regarding criminal law? From and article posted on the Sabotaging the rule of law thread on FreeRepublic
How Judges Facilitated
Congress in Expanding Big Government
and Political Agenda Laws...
Since 1894 judges presiding over jury trials have routinely violated defendants' Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Largely leaving the people's fate in the hands of congress.
...
Each juror is not to be partial, in favor of or against the state, nor partial, in favor of or against the defendant. It is the judge presiding over the trial that has the responsibility of ensuring that the jury is impartial -- favoring neither the state or the defendant.
The Sixth Amendment reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
Prior to 1894, judges routinely ensured that each jury was an impartial jury as mandated by the United States Constitution.
Gray and Shiras (Justices), Dissent: Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, October Term, 1894. The classic opinion of the two dissenting justices on the case which effectively ended routine instruction of juries in their right to judge both law and fact. The majority ruled that while jurors do have the power to nullify the law, judges need not tell them about it, except in cases where state laws or constitutions specify that jurors must be told.
What Justices Gray and Shiras failed to acknowledge, either by incompetence or intent to defraud, is that it is the defendant's right to be ensured that his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is upheld. It is not a juror's right to be informed. It is the defendant's right that each juror be informed.
In effect, since 1894 each judge has instructed by omission that each juror is to be partial, in favor of the STATE.
So by your own source, to extent that the "right" of jury nullification exists Pennsylvania, it does so by virtue of an explicit provision of the state constitution. Not the United States Constitution, not the Tenth Amendment.
You should have read your source, it shot down your position.
You never tire of repeating that sourceless falsehood.
"It is settled law that the clause of the Fifth Amendment, protecting a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself, is not made effective by the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection against state action on the ground that freedom from testimonial compulsion is a right of national citizenship, or because it is a personal privilege or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution as one of the rights of man that are listed in the Bill of Rights." -- United States Supreme Court, Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
South Dakota Constitutional Amendent A: Jury Nullification
YES 23% NO 77%
The USCC has made it clear that the people retain the right to jury nullification. That would trump the state constitution if the state constitution declared that the people did not have the right. But it doesn't, and none others do either.
You can't cite any source for your position, so you misrepresent the facts about jury nullification instead. Where are your sources?
Perfectly stated.
South Dakota proves otherwise.
And, here we are resurfacing so soon.
The following is from a Virginia Supreme Court. The decision quotes a few interesting Courts I am sure you will dismiss. Sorry the decision isn't 100 years old, but it clearly seems at odds with your interpretation. It appears the decision upon which you hang your hat does not enjoy the comforts of the doctrine of stare decisis:
"The Commonwealth has the right to insist "that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court." Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980). A juror opposed to the imposition of the death penalty is not impartial. This is so because he or she would be unwilling or unable to follow the law. Such a juror might attempt to undermine the proper functioning of the courts by engaging in jury nullification. Thus, such a juror can be excluded from a jury panel without violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. See Briley, 746 F.2d at 226-27; Keeten, 742 F.2d at 133-34." See Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401, 414, 329 S.E.2d 815, ___ (1985)
Of course, what does the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Supreme Court of the United States know about this issue? It's just a bunch of lawyers getting together to defraud Americans and rewite the Constitution. (Unless of course, the decisions are 100 plus years old, and then they are obviously pure, well-reasoned, and beyond reproach. -- Like Dread Scott!).
Let's see, my time .5 x 300 per-hour. That's $150.00 at my normal rate. But hey, this is "free Republic." So, no charge.
I will say this, I have learned at least one thing on this thread, and that is that it "appears" that at least two jurisdictions have Constitutions that say that Juries can decide the law and the facts. My guess is, that by tomorrow, I will see whether those citations are legit, AND, more importantly, I will see how the high Courts have interpreted those provisions.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
No mention of jury nullification there. Your question begging fails again.
Well, well, well. Nice catch.
Both sides agreed that juries, whose deliberations are secret and cannot be reviewed, have the power to nullify laws by at times ignoring them.
Both sides AGREE that jurors have the power to nullify. The defeat of the amendment doesn't change that. The amendment would have allowed the defendant to ask for nullification by admitting that s/he did what they are charged with, but declaring that the law is wrong.
That is different from the debate at hand.
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.