[marktwain]

A step forward toward restoring the anchor that will hold the government to the principles of its constitution, spoken of by Jefferson.

[cripplecreek]

Why the hell do they need to pass a law to legalize the constitutional?

Personally I think we need to revisit the 1895 supreme court decision that jurors “Need not be informed” of their rights. I would further back it up by requiring that all students must demonstrate proficiency in juror rights and duties before graduating.

[LongWayHome]

I’m surprised the rat Lynch signed this.

[Lurker]

Get ready for “the law is the Law” crowd to chime in.

[Gay State Conservative]

I've read that at least several framers of our Constitution made it quite clear during their lifetimes that juries have both the power to determine guilt *and* the power to judge the validity of a particular law as it pertains to that particular case.

If I,for example,ever find myself on a jury in a case in which a "hate crime" charge is involved I,rejecting the basic validity of all such laws,will vote "not guilty" on *that* charge....and I'll try to convince my fellow jurors to do likewise.

[Navy Patriot]

Informed Jury alert, you too, can make a judge and prosecutor miserable.

[Marie]

btt

[phockthis]

All of these are clickable links pertaining to Jury Nullification at this site.

---

MEDIA COVERAGE #
In Jury Rooms, A Form of Civil Protest Grows 1999

LAURA KRIHO CASE (Acquitted Aug 2000) #

Voir Dire : A French Term for Jury Stacking - Mountain Media

Juror Rights are Dealt a Blow - Boulder Weekly

Jury Power & “Drug Peace”! - Amer. Anti-Prohibition League
OFF-SITE RESOURCES
SECONDARY RESOURCES #
FIJA :
The Fully Informed Jury Association

The Jury Rights Project

History of Jury Nullification

Juror’s Handbook

The Citizen’s Rulebook

Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law

Jury Nullification : The Top Secret Constitutional Right

An Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852)

CRFC - Jury Nullification

What Lawyers and Judges Won’t Tell You About Juries

Jury Nullification Bibliography
MEDIA COVERAGE #

Jury Nullification is a Tool for Chaos Foster’s Online, 2003 (archive.org)

South Dakota Rejects Jury Nullification Dec 2002

Jurors with Convictions, Freemarket.net
Trial By Jury, Clay S. Conrad, Cato Institute Dec 1998

What lawyers and judges won’t tell you about juries,

Progressive Review (1990)

LAURA KRIHO CASE (Acquitted Aug 2000) #

The Jury on Trial - Media Bypass, Dec 1996

Jury Rights Project - Kriho

ED ROSENTHAL CASE #

Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict, Ann Harrison, AlterNet Feb 3, 2003

Compassion Challenged, Clay S. Conrad, Cato Institute Feb 2003

The Words of the Founding Fathers

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction...
if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
— Alexander Hamilton, 1804

It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
—John Adams, 1771

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man
by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1789

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made
by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they
cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow
— James Madison

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/jury_nullification/jury_nullification.shtml

[Lancey Howard]

Great stuff.

BUMP

[djf]

Let us not forget the William Penn case.

From WIKI:

By the late 17th century, the court’s ability to punish juries was removed in Bushel’s Case[20] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without “meat, drink, fire and tobacco” to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury “absurd”, and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.[21] This series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification.[22] The particular case is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey) in London.

Personally, I consider this case and the cases about the fugitive slave laws to be the critical essence of nullification.

The jury comes to a conclusion:
Given the totality of the law and the facts, has a crime been committed?

If the question is answered in good conscience, and the answer is “NO”, then there can be no conviction.

[Still Thinking]

The Wentworth instruction is a very lame and indirect instruction that hinges on the word “should.” The trial judge tells the jury something like, “If the prosecution has met its legal burden, the jury should find the defendant guilty.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court says that since the word “should” is uttered, the jury is notified that even if the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, “they could still acquit the defendant.”

Well, you might be able to stretch that into a case that you've informed that jury nullification is possible (Duh!), but only if you admit you've simultaneously told them they're not supposed to do it ("shouldn't"). If they have that right, this argument is bogus. It's like saying you've informed people of their 2A rights by telling them they shouldn't CCW.

[Still Thinking]

I am concerned, however, that this language does not go far enough. We don’t know how much pressure trial judges will exert on defense counsel. As noted above, if the attorney’s argument is “too strenuous,” the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the law as described by the court, not the defense.

That was my immediate thought as well. The law should probably be amended to tell judges they're not allowed to issue instructions that appear to preclude nullification.