Posted on 01/22/2011 4:29:38 PM PST by don-o
Purpose
The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant.
The Fully Informed Jury Association(FIJA)is a nonpartisan public policy research and education organization located in Helena, Montana. FIJA focuses on issues involving the role of the jury in our justice system and the preservation of the full function of the jury as the final arbiter in our courts of law. The FIJA mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. FIJA works to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on our American system of government.
To assist supporters who press for a “fully informed jury,” FIJA has drafted the following model bill language suitable for passage into law or for amending a state constitution:
“An accused or aggrieved party’s right to trial by jury, in all instances where the government or any of its agencies is an opposing party, includes the right to inform the jurors of their power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience.
This right shall not be infringed by any statute, juror oath, court order, or procedure or practice of the court, including the use of any method of jury selection which could preclude or limit the empanelment of jurors willing to exercise this power.
Nor shall this right be infringed by preventing any party to the trial, once the jurors have been informed of their powers, from presenting arguments to the jury which may pertain to issues of law and conscience, including (1) the merit, intent, constitutionality or applicability of the law in the instant case; (2) the motives, moral perspective, or circumstances of the accused or aggrieved party; (3) the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done, or (4) the sanctions which may be applied to the losing party.
Failure to allow the accused or aggrieved party or counsel for that party to so inform the jury shall be grounds for mistrial and another trial by jury.
When every American juror is aware of and permitted to exercise all of his and her rights, the final judgment of law will return to where it was always intended to be located…in the hands of the people. Once again our jury system will function as our country’s founders intended it to function as people’s final check against the government’s tendency to encroach upon the rights of its people.
N.B. FIJA conducts its campaign solely through educational outreach programs and materials, and works to achieve its goals through means appropriate to its 501(c)(3) status. It does not advocate violence or willful disobedience to the law, and does not associate itself with any anti-government movement or organization.
To maintain its independence, FIJA accepts no government funding. FIJA programs and publications are possible because of generous contributions received from individual donors, foundations and corporations. FIJA generates revenue through seminar fees and the sale of FIJA publications and materials. FIJA is a public policy nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Tell that to William Penn and Patrick Henry, fool.
I suppose you are entitled to that opinion, but I would wonder if I held an opinion about a legal matter that was contrary to the views expressed by the American Founders, notable jurists, and American courts of law, whether I was right.
Others have posted quotations attesting that Jefferson, Adams, Oliver Wendel Holmes, John Jay, and several appellate court decisions hold that exonerating a defendant because they feel the law is bad, or bad in the given circumstance, is a power enjoyed by an empaneled jury. Your thinking a jury ought not have that power does not make it so. And notice, it is only a right to acquit in defiance of the law, not a right to convict.
It is precisely for this reason that in the list of “boxes” by which liberty is defended, the jury box is listed between the ballot box and the cartridge box.
“You are so completely dead wrong on this it isn’t even funny.”
Lurker, you are on target. I’ll back you 110%. VRWCmember is clueless about jury nullification.
I would hope that VRWCmember would check out the Fugitive Slave Act back in 1851 and all the slaves who were rescued from slavery because of jury nullification.
The bottom line for me is that jurors who decide they can disregard the law in handing down verdicts are no better than judges who decide they can disregard the constitution in handing down their rulings. The only difference is that the juror is not as well paid, probably because their verdicts do not have as far-reaching an impact on future cases.
And about a 100 years later, how many murderers walked because of jury nullification when all-white juries relied on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and decided that killing a black person didn't amount to murder.
Out of curiosity dave, how do you feel about “judicial nullification” when federal judges apply their personal conscience and foreign law and whatever else they apply to decide that the Constitution doesn’t really mean what it says or doesn’t apply?
I find it rather interesting that people who would decry judicial activism would simultaneously stand up and cheer for runaway juries.
“But some of the fellow jurors are so damn serious about it, ready to secondguess all the expert witnesses, so clever by half, it is embarassing and shameful, besides being timewasting.”
God bless them. Someone needs to stick an eye up the asses of the ‘experts’ and the courts.
“Why don’t members of the FIJA picket in front of courthouses, handing out information about specific cases, and informing potential jurors?”
They do.Search for the “Ridley Report” and there’s an old man in one of the videos that got roughed up by the Feds for doing just that.
Scum-sucking Feds.
I was on just such a jury. The defendant was a felon "attempting to possess a firearm". The facts of the case were that his girlfriend had hidden a gun (in her place), and when the police asked him where it was he reached towards it to hand it to them. They said "let us get it and he said OK". But the fact that he reached towards it to hand it to them brought the charge.
The foreman said "Well we all know how this will turn out", but I proceeded to argue the defendant's case, that he was attempting to do the right thing, and shouldn't be punished for acting to clear the situation up. In truth it seemed like a bogus charge because they couldn't slap him with anything else and were annoyed with him.
I am pleased to say we found him not guilty.
You are missing the point: the jury is not the government, but representatives of the ordinary citizens.
In judicial activism, one part of the government, the judiciary, usurps the role of another, the legislative. In jury nullification, the citizens restrain the power of the government to punish fellow-citizens for some behavior by deciding that application of (the judge’s reading of) some law or other would be unjust.
The rule of law per se is not a guarantee of liberty. Tyranny can be established without caprice, simply by making so many things illegal that no one can live without being a criminal under the prevailing laws. Back in May the Heritage Foundation had a symposium with the waggish title “One Nation Under Arrest” about American law trending in that direction.
As I note before, jury nullification is the reason the jury box falls between the ballot box and the cartridge box in the list “Soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box”. Slavishly applying the law and judging only the facts is not much of a role in defense of liberty. Judging the facts and the justice of applying the law to the case at hand is.
“And about a 100 years later, how many murderers walked because of jury nullification when all-white juries relied on personal conscience”
You want to play moral equivalance? Fine.
How many black slaves walked away free because white people refused to convict people who helped slaves escape versus all-white juries deciding that killing a black person didn’t matter?
Give me a verifiable number. Or just make it up. I expect no less from liberals.
Interesting statement, what is the proper response then for the following legal situation:
After going onto a University campus, openly carrying a weapon -- say a Glock .45 -- some Citizen is arrested for violating this state law:
| NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
|---|
| A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by: (1) a peace officer; (2) university security personnel; (3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program; (4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property. B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises. C. As used in this section: (1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and (2) "university premises" means: (a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or (b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed. D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
| Constitution Of The State Of New Mexico Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
According to the first phrase -- "no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense" -- NMSA 30-7-2.4 is invalid because it does abridge the right to bear firearms; further, if this Citizen were a student living in on-campus housing then because that housing is "university premises" he may not even keep those arms (at his residence).
If the judge refused to throw the case out on such argument, then (according to your statement) the jury would be wrong by "decid[ing] based on their own opinions" that NMSA 30-7-2.4 "doesn't count."
Even if it is the opinion of the jury that a state-law cannot countermand the State Constitution.
Correct?
“I find it rather interesting that people who would decry judicial activism would simultaneously stand up and cheer for runaway juries.”
I, too, find it interesting that some people believe that “the law,” regardless of how bad or evil it might be, must be blindly obeyed. The Nuremberg trials sorted that issue out. So did our 1776 revolution. Or did you find that against “the law’ and repugnant?
Grand jury?
Cool.
Grand Juries CAN conduct investigations and make charges based on those investigations (presentments, as mentioned in the Constitution)... this would be particularly useful against a corrupt judiciary/executive alliance.
Like, say, my state. We have a portion in our Constitution which says:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Yet on every city and county courthouse there is posted “NO WEAPONS;” when I ask what the authorizing authority to bar weapons in these courthouse I receive the reply: “the judge.” (And violating that you will likely be arrested.)
I think you’re absolutely right on. In the coming stuggle for the last bastion of freedom in the world the only weapons (oh will that get me thrown in jail? should I say “tools”) we have against a thoroughly leftist judiciary may be the jury and the grand jury.
We need to exploit these “tools.”
>I often tell people who have been summoned for jury duty that the fastest way to be disqualified is to mention Sparf during questioning.
Question: What is Sparf?
In many cases it has been.
I do not agree with that view.
That's because you don't have a fricking clue as to the role of a Jury. Thank God our Founding Fathers did:
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Judge of the US Supreme Court.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice.
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
The bottom line for me is that jurors who decide they can disregard the law in handing down verdicts are no better than judges who decide they can disregard the constitution in handing down their rulings.
That's because you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know squat about the role of Juries in our system. I hope to God you never end up on one.
L
Sparf VS United states (1895). I’m on my way to bed so I’m not gouing to track it down tonight.
Basically the supreme court ruled that “Jurors need not be informed of their rights”. Anytime the government dictates that we don’t need to know is bad for freedom (Aside from limited national security issues)
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.