It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law..."The problem is that the majority...fails to articulate how trial courts may properly inform jurors of that duty, apparently assuming instead that jurors will discover this duty on their own," [dissenting Judge] Baxter wrote.
How about recognizing that the juror has no such duty?
"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," [Superior Court Judge James] Warren said.
As a practical matter, it really is no different. Jurors should not be told to "follow the law as the judge states it." This is akin to telling jurors that they must obey whatever the government says. This of course flies in the face of the jury's and the Sixth Amendment's purpose, which is to serve as a check on government, not to serve as government's rubber stamp.
Any chance Marv that if a jury was simply reminded of their personal responsibilities this might be as effective (if any instruction is effective) without the chilling effect of a mole on the jury.
You are exactly correct, Sandy. The above instruction is a lie. Jurors have always had the power to judge the law and possible sentences to assure that justice is done. It is a basic american and english law concept called jury nullification. Every lawyer will grudgingly admit that the jurors have the power, but most of them will argue that they should not.
This of course flies in the face of the jury's and the Sixth Amendment's purpose, which is to serve as a check on government, not to serve as government's rubber stamp.
In particular it violates the defendants Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Discover How Judges that Preside
Over Jury Trials Routinely Violate the Constitution.
"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]."
The above statement in bold told to jurors, since 1894 has been in violation of each Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The Sixth Amendment reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Prior to 1894 judges routinely told jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. ...And the law. For the defendant, a jury that judges the law upholds his right to a jury that is not partial for the government. It is the defendants right to have a jury that judges the law as well as the facts.
To judge all facts in the case includes judging the most critical fact -- that a person was charged with breaking a certain and specific law or laws. Without that there can be no case to take to trial. It is the primary and most critical fact for which the government makes its case. Pressing criminal charges against a person gets the process in motion. The reason it must be the prosecution that gets the process started is because the suspect/defendant is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty in court.
Thus it was not the person's/defendant's actions that initiated force against any person or their property. For, until the defendant has received the verdict it is not known whether the arresting law enforcement officer acted in self-defense in correctly upholding the law or unknowingly acted with initiation of force while attempting to uphold the law. That is, the LEO making the arrest had reason to believe the person broke the law and then the DA (district attorney) pressed charges against the suspect. Yet the LEO/DA/government don't know for certain that the suspect/defendant broke the law. That detail will be answered by the jury.
What does it mean when the jury's verdict is an acquittal? It means the charges against the defendant were in error. That is, the defendant never broke the law he was charged with breaking. The law has been judged by the jury to have been wrongfully charged against the defendant. The jury says, "No. The law does not apply to the defendant breaking it. The law only applies in that the defendant abided the law." The law has been deemed to have been wrongfully applied -- the law does not apply to the defendant.
Guess what? That's what jury nullification is -- the jury discovers the same thing. That is, with jury nullification the jury decides that the law does not apply to the defendant -- the law had been wrongfully applied.
As per the Sixth Amendment the defendant has the right to an impartial trial wherein the jury judges the law. For there is no way the jury can avoid judging the law. The jury has only two choices, 1) the law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant, or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
It is each judge's job responsibility to ensure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are protected. The primary key to each trial is the laws that the defendant is charged to have violated. It is by way of the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense during the trial that the primary key -- law as charged -- is judged to have been correct or in error. The facts presented by the prosecution and defense are secondary. That's the nature of cause and effect relationships. When one thing cannot exist without the other first being present the first thing is primary and the effect of that is secondary.
It is accepted that the defendant acted in a manner that appeared to have broken the law and was one factor in the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment that the person's actions violated the law. It cannot be misconstrued that the defendant's actions are the primary cause. For the defendant is deemed innocent and only suspected to have broken the law. The primary cause is the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment to set the court process in motion -- not the suspect's actions.
As per the Sixth Amendment an impartial jury favors neither the government nor the defendant.
Each jury that each judge has failed to inform the jury that they are to judge the law as well as the facts as they pertain to the case/trial has caused each of those juries to favor the government over the defendant.
Since 1894 each judge that has presided over jury trials has routinely violated the constitution. Concurrently, each defendant in each of those trials has had his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury violated. ....Violated by the judge presiding over the trial.
At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law.
As shown ealier the jury cannot disregard the law for it is the law that is the primary key being judged.
"Unless jurors are informed of their solemn responsibility to report misconduct, I predict that many judgments will be reversed simply because the trial judge never had the opportunity to cure the problem."
That is trivial compared to the fact that virtually every judge presiding over jury trials routinely violates defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. Now there's a valid reason why many judgments will be reversed. Reversed simply because the judge violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when he instructed the jury to favor the government over the defendant.