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.
I’m surprised the rat Lynch signed this.
Get ready for “the law is the Law” crowd to chime in.
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.
Informed Jury alert, you too, can make a judge and prosecutor miserable.
btt
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
Great stuff.
BUMP
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.
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.
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.