Non-Enforcement of Laws Works Both Ways; Jurors can Shut Down Obama Agenda

I was suggesting this to a friend today, if the federal government won’t enforce immigration law, why should we follow ANY federal law? I could use the extra tax money, just bought a mountain top.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)).

In Sparf vs US 156 US 51 (1895), the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so.

As is reflected in Amendment VI - granting the accused an inviolable right to a jury determination of his guilt or innocence in all criminal prosecutions for serious offenses - a trial judge can NOT direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277 (1993). Any violation of this rule is automatically reversible error without regard to the evidence of guilt. Id. That point is so well settled that it was announced without dissent in Sullivan by a Court that has been unanimous on only a few constitutional questions in the past ten years.

In fact, the rule is applied with a rigor that is without parallel in any area of civil practice, e.g., it is reversible error to direct a verdict of guilty over the defendant's objection, even if he takes the witness stand and admits under oath that he committed every element of the charged offense! Bryant v. Georgia, 163 Ga. App. 872, 296 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Likewise, when a judge takes judicial notice of a fact in a criminal case--for example, that the defendant could not have boarded a train in New York and exited in Texas without somehow crossing state lines--he will tell the jury they "may" accept that fact as proven without further evidence. But he may not tell them that they are required to do so, or take the factual question away from them, no matter how obvious the fact might seem. See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 201(g). Even where the defendant and his attorney enter into a formal stipulation admitting an element of the offense, the jury should be told merely that they may regard the matter to be "proved," if they wish, but the judge still cannot direct a verdict on that factual issue or take it away from the jury over the defendant's objection. United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 679-80 (4th Cir. 1996). All of these rules are designed, in part, to protect the jury's inviolable power to nullify and to avoid the reversible error always committed when "the wrong entity judge[s] the defendant guilty." Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986).

In contrast to the foregoing, case after case has approved jury instructions actually designed to imply that jurors do not have such power at all, or to "instruct the jury on the dimensions of their duty to the exclusion of jury nullification." United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1190 (1st Cir. 1993), e.g.,:

You must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought the law was different or should be different - Eighth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 3.02 (1991)
even if you disagree or don't understand the reasons for some of the rules. - Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 9 (1987)

In one especially outrageous case, the jury deliberated for hours in a criminal tax case before sending the judge a note asking: "What is jury nullification?" The defendant was convicted shortly after the judge falsely told the jury that "there is no such thing as valid jury nullification," and that they would violate their oath and the law if they did such a thing. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013,1021 (6th Cir. 1988). Over a vigorous dissent, the Court of Appeals deemed the instruction proper and affirmed the conviction, id., even after the defendant furnished the court with an affidavit from a juror who swore he would have acquitted if "we were told the truth about jury nullification." United States v. Krzyske, 857 F.2d 1089,1095 (6th Cir. 1988).

The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. - US vs Dougherty (op. cit. earlier)

Without exception, the appellate courts will not allow a defense attorney to inform jurors about their power to nullify, or to urge them to use it, in their closing arguments (See, e.g., United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 677 (4th Cir. 1996). Nor can the defense offer evidence that is relevant to nothing but the justness of a conviction or acquittal, or is otherwise designed to induce the jury to nullify. United States v. Griggs, 50 F.3d 17, 1995 WL 7669 (9th Cir. 1994). This includes, most notably, any information about the sentence faced by the defendant, even if it is a minimum mandated by law. United States v. Johnson, 62 F.3d 849, 850-51 (6th Cir. 1995).

Heidi Fleiss, for example, was convicted of consensual sex offenses by jurors who were "outraged" to later learn she faced a minimum three-year prison sentence. Despite several jurors' belief that she was innocent, the jurors had struck a deal after four days of deliberating and acquitted her of drug charges--where the evidence was stronger--because they were "under the mistaken impression that the narcotics charge carried a stiffer penalty." Shawn Hubler, Court Overturns Fleiss' Conviction, Orders New Trial, L.A. Times, at A1 (May 30, 1996).

And furthermore, judicial disapproval extends to any evidence or argument designed solely to persuade the jury that the government was guilty of misconduct in its investigation or prosecution. United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93-95 (2d Cir. 1984).

Even at the very beginning of the battle are the roadblocks are erected. Requests to ask jurors about nullification on voir dire have been denied. United States v. Datche,. 830 F. Supp. 411, 418 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). One pro se defendant tried to persuade the Supreme Court that her trial judge improperly refused to let her challenge for cause those prospective jurors who did know or understand the term "jury nullification." Mendonca v. Oregon, 55 U.S.L.W. 3362 (1986) (petition for certiorari).

The putative purpose of the jury is "to prevent oppression by the Government" and to "protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968). The jury's role "as a check on official power" is in fact "its intended function." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86-87 n.8 (1986). The jury injects "a slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions." United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 126 F.2d 774, 775-76 (2d Cir. 1942) (Learned Hand, J.). That is why a directed verdict for the state would be not merely unconstitutional--it "would be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice," since "the discretionary act of jury nullification would not be permitted." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 199 n.50 (1976) (plurality opinion).

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. - US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case. Because a jury's guilty decision must be unanimous, it takes only one vote to effectively nullify a bad "act of the legislature". Your one vote can "hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal, at least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an unjust or unconstitutional law.

That being said, nevertheless, and notwithstanding, it is your responsibility to insist that your vote of not guilty be respected by all other members of the jury. For you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as a qualified judge in your right to see that justice is done. Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be applied to you by any or all members of the jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree - although they be many - you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your conscience and convictions, not those of someone else.

The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without your consent! God help us all when the average citizen shirk their duty to this Republic to perform such a solemn task.

0bama nullification. It’s not just a slogan.

I might just have to remember that.

Any law, selectively enforced, is no longer a law. Instead, it is persecution.

"just bought a mountain top."

Aren't those covered with snow ~ 10 months a year?

It’s not that tall of a mountain, still have to get to work you know, was thinking I might have to park my truck down lower and buy an ATV to get to it. Great view though and neighbors just a glimmer of light in the distance!

considering that Government controls the Law, Evidence and Facts, why do we even have trials??

The fastest way to stop this is by having a United Jury in a criminal trial, FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES through Presentments, for FRAUD, PERJURY, Juror Intimidation. DEMAND THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR BE CHARGED AND ARRESTED. Just find them Guilty. Make it public and make it loud.

But can’t the judge remove a juror if he/she suspects or can prove that the juror is practicing jury nullification?

It has happened. Whether the judge had the right to do so is another story.

This is why, while we can talk about jury nullification here, you should never mention it inside the court building. Just quietly make your decision.

If anybody asks why you are sticking to your decision, just say "the prosecution failed to convince me of his guilt" and SHUT UP. They cannot force you to explain your reasoning.

The government will also forbid a defendant presenting controlling legal precedent to the jury.

Most of the time, the law is an orderly process, but not all of the time. Some of the time, the process is a complete sham - and this is especially true in second amendment cases.

I bookmarked that. Thanks.

The libs HATE juries. They always want their trials to be before a judge, a selected judge. They find it harder to convince 12 people than just one.

They hate juries unless they can pack the juries with retards.

Later...

Are you serious?

You appear to be saying that the government will attempt to inhibit legal precedence in a court of law through the arm of force.

You make it sound as if people are going to get hurt whether they do something or not...