Posted on 03/17/2012 7:49:03 AM PDT by Chuckmorse
About a year ago, I was called upon by the county of Norfolk in Massachusetts to serve on a jury. I reported for jury duty at the District Court in Quincy, Mass. Before the selection process, in which I was not picked, I, along with my fellow potential jurists, was shown a film that was supposed to inform me of my responsibilities as a jurist. This film was misleading to say the least.
Through vagaries and sophistic sleight of hand, the film, which involved instructions from a local judge, prosecutor, and lawyer, left the impression, without a direct statement, that the juror was subordinate to the judge. This impression is false and a misrepresentation of the meaning and purpose of our jury system. The juror, in a criminal case, is sworn to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty and no judge or lawyer has a right to interfere in any way. It is also a little known fact that the juror is empowered to judge the legality and constitutionality of the law upon which the case is based.
The responsibility of a juror can best be summed up in a statement by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He stated, in 1789, that "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." This means that a juror judges both the merits of the case and the law upon which the case is based. A juror, by voting not guilty, can literally void a law. The misconception is that any law passed by a legislature constitutes the law of the land. Theoretically, a single juror can nullify a law concerning gun control, drug regulation, hate speech, or other legislation.
The sitting juror, in judging a controversy, is also empanelled to examine the law upon which the controversy is based. In this regard, he holds the power to undo a law enacted by Congress, the President, or the Judiciary. Harlan Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1941 stated "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." In addition, Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S.Supreme Court Justice, in 1902 stated "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune, in an article published Nov. 30, 1984, discusses the history of the jury system. The article says "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence." In the early years, American citizens understood that in the course of enforcing a law, the government would have to get permission from a panel of common citizens, who, when empanelled as a jury, make up a sort of peoples Congress. This was seen as an essential part of the system of checks and balances. The government was "checked" by the jury from enacting oppressive laws. This continued until the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which required juries in free states to render judgments that would result in escaped slaves being forcibly returned to slave owners. Juries in the North were beginning to refuse to convict in these cases on the grounds that this law was an interference by the Federal Government in states rights and that it was unconstitutional. Judges responded with a process of eroding the institution of the free jury over time.
Today, according to the Minneapolis Star article, juries are not informed of their right to return a not guilty verdict regardless of the facts. The article goes on to state that "As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good."
Citizens called to jury duty should understand the sacred trust placed in them. They should be made aware of the nature of their office and they should exercise that responsibility as it was meant to be exercised which was in the service of freedom. They should be apprised of the full extent of their responsibility to do justice not only in the specific case at hand, but for the community, and the nation as a whole.
I have never been empaneled. A few years ago I got to the point of voir dire — I was asked “why is presumption of innocence important?” I answered “it is all that stands between a defendant and the State’s unlimited resources.” The prosecutor couldn’t bounce me fast enough...
That's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. - Tom
I can tell you from sad personal experience that you can start a really heated argument with a jurist by bringing up this subject! I will also say that I couldn’t agree more with ALL of this:
“The sitting juror, in judging a controversy, is also empanelled to examine the law upon which the controversy is based. In this regard, he holds the power to undo a law enacted by Congress, the President, or the Judiciary.”
Harlan Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1941 stated “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”
In addition, Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S.Supreme Court Justice, in 1902 stated “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”
So in other words, the miscreants skated because the jury disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. The libs love this kind of stuff.
Yup, they couldn’t bounce me fast enough either. The defense attorney asked me, “Juror #1, how do you FEEL about Assault and Battery?” I said, “I believe it is wrong.”
haha, out the door and FAST.
I have been empanelled 3 times here in Mass. at the Brocton court.
Each time I have told them I do not believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I explain the juror should be unbiased and the fact you asked a person to presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty is introducing a bias in favor of the defendant.
You should not do that: anymore than imply just because the person is on trial, that he was guilty of something,otherwise he wouldn't be on trial.
Jurors should be unbiased.
Then I go on to explain there is no constitutional or legal justification in American law for this assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I never got put of a case and was empaneled each time. -tom
Just like with the presumption of innocence and the demand that the state prove the guilt of a defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt," the greater good is nevertheless served by applying the principle, even if it means that in a few cases, a guilty man may walk free.
“Presumption of innocence” deals with the level of surity required to render a guilty verdict, rather than whether the juror is biased or not. The defendant does, indeed, get to start out with the legal presumption that he does not have to prove that he is innocent, but that the state has to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he is guilty. I think you are misunderstanding the point to the principle somewhat.
I understand the principle just fine. Others don’t understand that it is a two-edged sword. And given the likelihood that jurors are selected for their “stupidity,” I would argue that negative outcomes are more prevalent.
Thanks for posting this.
Looks like lawyers and lawyer-politicians have subverted another sacred principle on which our nation was founded.
I was part of a jury selection pool several times, but never got as far as being chosen as a juror or alternate. I was prepared to insist on my juror rights.
Just as an aside, I recently testified as an expert witness in a wrongful death case. A team of opposing attorneys, bullies all, spent seven hours at the initial deposition assaulting my character and credentials in a deeply disturbing style.
In addition, their questions were worded - almost invariably - in a forced-choice manner that entirely precluded any possibility that I could render “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” that I had sworn to tell.
I pointed this out. The attorney interrogating me at the time replied, “I’m in charge here. You understand? I ask the question and you answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. That’s how the game is played, and you will play it that way.”
I bowed out of the case, and will never do court work again.
I agree.
One of the main qualiifications for being a juror on a high profile case is ignorance of a major event.
Do you know who OJ Simpson is?
Yes. He is an ex NFL football player accused of killing his wife and a man named Ron Coleman. - rejected
Next. do you know who OJ Simpson is?
I don't watch that much TV, but the name Simpson is familiar to me.
. Is he the son in the TV series the Simpsons? -qualified
“Jury nullification of law,” as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America’s Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. – unsigned article at
lol. That sounds right.
The most coveted juror is the ignorant
To which *I* would have responded, "This is 'We the People's' courtroom, and *THEY* are in charge, it is most empahtically *not* your private fiefdom, to do as you will *ESQUIRE*..."
the infowarrior
Speaking as a former Prosecutor of 25 years, I agree with you 100%. Nullification, in rare circumstances, is absolutely appropriate. I sure know it happened a few times.
Santorum 2012
I totally believe in jury nullification, now more than ever. The amoral elitists have made too much illegal “progress” against the US consitution in the legal system. Cops have become too corrupted.
Bottom line - when I am on a jury - I am the law just as the elite are the law. I trust me more than them.
I want to ask you a question about this subject - How/when/where did it all go so wrong that it’s no longer a search for the truth?
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.