Posted on 12/03/2015 1:28:38 PM PST by Twotone
Keith Eric Wood is being prosecuted for standing outside a Michigan courthouse and handing out a leaflet that discusses jury nullification.
According to Michigan authorities, his leafletting (1) constitutes felony “obstruction of justice," by "knowingly and intentionally giving the members of a ... jury pool a pamphlet that encouraged the jurors to violate their oaths and directly contradicted the instructions the jurors would be given thereby tainting the entire jury panel..."
(Excerpt) Read more at fee.org ...
I've been called three times.
1. Local college date rape case.
Defense lawyer - "Tell me about your life & family."
Me - "I'm a Vietnam vet, afterward was a USMC captain and I'm married with four kids, three of them daughters."
Defense lawyer - "You're dismissed!"
2. Drunk from the local Indian reservation shot & killed a Park Ranger.
Defense lawyer - "Has either your drinking or that of a family member adversely affected your life?"
Me- "My Dad was an alcoholic."
Defense lawyer - "You're dismissed!"
3. Traffic accident civil suit - Ended up jury foreman.
Interesting experience!
You are the one sounding like a "fanatic", denying this history, saying you won't discuss it (while discussing it), and wanting to command people to abide by your incorrect opinions.
All the strikes by both attorneys were already used when she was evaluated - and since she couldn't be struck from the jury pool she was seated as a juror.
Aristotle states one has won an argument when ones opponent is reduced to inane statements such as yours. Argue the merits of your right break your oath given to the judge in open court. Once again I do not wish to bandy words with a person who advocates his right to break his oath. Leave me alone. I do not wish to deal with a person like you.
It's not a matter of violating an oath.
I make it quite clear to the counsel and the court, during the voir dire process, that I believe in jury nullification. If they choose to select me to serve on the jury, I will simply answer in the negative during the oath process. That's quite straightforward. I will not answer affirmatively to any oath requiring me to blindly follow the instructions of the judge without using my independent judgment on the validity of the underlying law on which I'm making a decision.
I've never been selected for any of the two dozen or so jury selection proceedings that I've been called to attend. Between the fact that I've been a court stenographer/court reporter for almost 40 years (military and civil service), that I happen to know (or have served in the military with) most of the attorneys in the county, and my opinion of jury nullification, I've never even made the first cut.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.†- Samuel Adams
Did you ever bump your nose on the ceiling?
Had ENOUGH Yet ?
I've seen lawyers seated on juries in Dallas.
Oath?
What kind of oath are we talking about. If it’s an oath to follow the law, that has to mean that each juror needs to consider the facts of the case and apply the law, as understood by the juror, to the case. If a juror cannot be allowed to use their mind to make their decision, there wouldn’t be any reason for a jury.
If a judge thinks that the jury MUST follow their instructions, the judge is engaging in jury tampering. A judge cannot be considered infallible.
Ah yes ... the "Just Us" system.
The jury is EXPECTED to decide if they are going to hold their follow citizen accountable to the king’s law. THAT was the most important purpose of the jury.
“Jurors take an oath to follow the judges instructions as to what is the law”
No, they do not. Where did you get that rubbish? The judge is not the dictator of a jury. He does not command them in any way. They jury decides if the law shall apply and if the person is guilty of violating the law.
You need to go back to high school and take civics.
“Once again people like you cannot be reasoned with only commanded.”
So, you are a communist that thinks others are to be lorded over? FU and the socialist party you belong to!
“One does not discuss, debate or express points of view with people like you, one commands them.”
And some people have sense enough to ignore a self-appointed authority who tries to go around commanding people over whom the self-appointed “one” has no real authority.
We are on a forum where logic and reason are exchanged to make “one’s” case as opposed to smug, condescending tripe.
Better Call Saul!
Tell the truth. Your name is George Will and you have no one to talk to?
Welcome to the site....
The Vulgarian
To me, that's where jury nullification lies: I make my own independent assessment on the validity and meaning of "the law". I already have the right to make an independent assessment on the weight of the evidence and believeability and credibility of the witnesses.
As a jury member, you're supposed to take as a given that the law is valid and correct. My belief is that I also have the right to make the same assessment on the validity of the actual law itself.
I didn’t know that jury nullification had been adjudicated.
Can you give some more details?
Jurors used to be instructed in jury nullification. Jurors were instructed that they could judge the law as well as the facts. That stopped at some point and a someone challenged a conviction where the jury was not instructed that they could judge the law. It eventually made it to the SC and the challenge was defeated. But it IS still legal to judge the law and determine if the law is unjust.
Judges and prosecutors and the police hate it.
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.