Replies

Ahh..so if someone shoots you because they feel it was their natural right because you were white, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

More particularly, if they were charged with the commission of a *hate crime* rather than the shooting, I would indeed prefer to see that charge against them dismissed, even though a *not guilty* verdict would mean that under the constitution, they could not be again charged for that offense, not that that's stopped some corrupt federal prosecutors from applying federal charges to a defendant who has prevailed in a state court. The solution to that problem is to find the defendant not guilty again, despite the unconstitutional railroad job.

Otherwise, you'll be facing an ex post facto charge of treason against the constitution for your own comments, made in violation of the Clinton Anti-terrorism act to be passed next year. Your execution will be held tomorrow; you can appeal any time after that.

-archy-/-

It's this simple: as a juror, undre the law, you can vote "not guilty" for any reason, or no reason at all. You may not be carrying out your moral duty as a juror, but it's not illegal. I say that in the sense that a not guity verdict cannot be overturned because the jury disregarded evidence. When you vote, you vote up or down, no reason to get into the "why".

If it is a tax evasion case, and the defense claims that the income tax ammendment was never ratified, and you agree, then you may consider voting not guilty. In the strictest sense, this isn't the purpose of a jury. The jury finds facts. But, as has been said here, you can do what you want. Now, technically, if the defense doesn't raise the issue, it may be improper for you to consider your belief about the ratification of the income tax ammendment, becaues that's a preconceived bias. You are supposed to be free from those. Arguably, that's a legal fiction.

Either way, you can vote, guilty or not, and you are not expected to offer any explaination.