I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY

[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.)

[savedbygrace]

OK, you've stepped over the line in the debate. Calling people cultists and accusing them of fraud doesn't advance your arguments.

Post some legal citations that support your POV or this debate is over. And you lost.

[tpaine]

But all states must conform to our BOR's
I tire of repeating the source, - our Constitution, Art VI Sec 2 & 3.
-tpaine-


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.
-roscoe- begs again

Of course there isn't, you clownish twit:
--- Those are the sections specifying that states are bound to honor the Constitution & BOR's, as the supreme law of the land.
Whatta joke you've become roscoe.

[Protagoras]

All of the things I cited were affirmed by law. The false god you worship. The fact that they were later rectified in one way or the other is irrelevant to the fact that by your own standards you accept them when they were law, because they were law.

My aim is dead on, and precise. Like a laser on your idol worship of the law. Bosco the Pharisee.

[Protagoras]

But using email to slander others is ok, right?

Right. The little hate groupie is a useful idiot.

[Protagoras]

I can vote not guilty any time I want to, for whatever reason, and I dont have to explain myself, nor my verdict. I just say that I dont think the prosecution proved its case, and leave it at that.

Which makes you and those like you the most dangerous people on the planet to Bosco and the boot heel boys. They have fits of foot stomping over the very thought.

It doesn't get any better than that. :-)

[Dick Bachert]

Here's ANOTHER reason why we're doomed if we allow the judges and the lawyers (aka land sharks) determine the meaning of the "law:"

Each year at the close of the legislative session here in Georgia, the legislature publishes what they call the "Legislative Summary" recapping all the laws enacted during that session. The inside FRONT cover contains these words in a letter from the Legislative Counsel" (the legislature's lawyer): "No claim is made as to the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ACTS CONTAINED HEREIN."

IF YOU THOUGHT THESE GUYS HAVE ONE EYE ON THE CONSTITUTION WHILE PASSING ALL THOSE LAWS, THINK AGAIN. If you don't think some of their laws won't pass muster, you get to hire one of their over-paid fellow land sharks and take 'em to court.

Dollars to donuts YOUR legislature does the same thing. It's called CYA!

Because an informed juror can frustrate their power grabs, they LOVE it when judges routinely lie to jurors about THEIR powers as the jury box is the next to last check on the power of the state. The LAST check -- and God help us if it ever comes to this – is the CARTRIDGE BOX.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, the four boxes -- soap box, ballot box, jury box, and -- last but not least -- cartridge box. Let's hope that the first three always work.

[Roscoe]

Post some legal citations

Yawn.

"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).

[Roscoe]

Those are the sections specifying that states are bound to honor the Constitution & BOR's

False, question beggar.

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.

USSC, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833

[Roscoe]

All of the things I cited were affirmed by law.

Uncited, naturally.

[Texasforever]

These clowns actually believe that Jury nullification means a hung jury. For a verdict to be actual "jury nullification" it would require that no person anywhere at any time could ever be tried for violating the same law based on the precedent set by the nullification. IDIOTS!

[Zon]

A jury nullifies the law in one specific case and has no legal bearing on the the law applied in other cases. You've been told that countless times. Idiots scream, and I quote you, "IDIOTS!" I'd you're a flaming one.

[AppyPappy]

If someone lets your mugger go because they thought there were too many black men in prison, don't come crying to me because the PEOPLE are the final judge of the law. We are not a nation of laws but a nation of peoples.

[jeafl]

Weren't the Founding Fathers speaking of laws enacted by Parliament- a body in which the Colonists had no representation? How can we maintain a civil society if laws that are duly enacted by constitutional procedures can be ignored by juries? If you don't like a particular law you can loby to have it repealed or modified; or you can engage in civil disobedience as a form of protest.

Was there any tradition under English common law of jury nullification?

[Dick Bachert]

And the point of this post is...?

[savedbygrace]

Ha. You need to do some more research, Roscoe. Adams v. Texas was very narrowly decided by the USCC on the issue of capital punishment and the jurors' oath.

You can read about it here

[tpaine]

'Barron' was an erroneous opinion, - an obvious political appeasement in an effort to avoid civil war.

The Constitution, as quoted, is our supreme law.
Case closed.

[Roscoe]

on the issue of capital punishment

Individuals who refused to uphold the capital punishment law had no right to be on the jury.

[Roscoe]

Barron' was an erroneous opinion

False, question beggar.

[tpaine]

Tiresome, silly line, roscoe.

Go 'Begger' off.