Sabotaging the rule of law

Washington Times ^ | 10/22/02 | Bruce Fein

[kattracks]

In contrast to Newton's Laws of Motion, every legal misstep creates an overreaction fraught with greater peril. Watergate begot the monstrous independent counsel statute. O.J. Simpson's murder acquittals occasioned clamor for non-unanimous jury verdicts. And in South Dakota, a few questionable prosecutions have sparked Amendment A, an initiative up for popular approval in November that would crown juries with a right to acquit for any reason irrespective of the evidence. In other words, criminals could go free because the jury despised their victims or sympathized with their motivations, no matter how ugly.

[Psycho Francis]

A right that juries have always had.....

....an initiative up for popular approval in November that would crown juries with a right to acquit for any reason irrespective of the evidence.

[mrustow]

BTTT.

[dobbyman]

Yep, The jury has always had this right and power and it is not a privlege that can be given to or taken away from the jury even if they passed a law about the jury.

[Founding Father]

In fact, an early supreme court case approved giving juries instructions that they had the right of nullification.

[Psycho Francis]

Late 19th century, I believe, so not that early. But certainly not a new right.

[tpaine]

Bruce Fein is in favor of sabotaging our constitutional rule of law, - with that of 'democratic' majority rule.

[Texasforever]

Of course it is a fact that a jury can acquit for any reason and cannot be challenged. That is not nullification. For it to be true nullification the jury could actually strike down the law in question and no one could ever be tried under that law again. That power is not nor has it ever been even implied.

[tpaine]

"the rule of law cannot tolerate the pardoning of law violations by the law's opponents through jury acquittals.
     To do so would be to deny the right of the majority to pass laws binding on dissenters, and each man would become a law unto himself.
      "It speaks volumes that the prime champions of jury supremacy over the law are groups that have suffered political defeats. This odd tableau features drug legalization proponents, & gun control detractors"
__________________________________

Tex, we have seen you make these self same arguments on the drug/gun control threads here at FR. You do not approve of the principle of jury 'nullification'. - Correct?

Can you comment?

[Texasforever]

Sure. Real jury nullification means that some wigged out jury could declare any law they wished "unconstitutional" and that would be insane. Acquitting an obviously guilty person has always been the sole prerogative of the jury but that is not "nullification".

[tpaine]

So in essence you agree with this protion of the article? - Below :

"the rule of law cannot tolerate the pardoning of law violations by the law's opponents through jury acquittals.
     To do so would be to deny the right of the majority to pass laws binding on dissenters, and each man would become a law unto himself.
      It speaks volumes that the prime champions of jury supremacy over the law are groups that have suffered political defeats. This odd tableau features drug legalization proponents, & gun control detractors"

[Texasforever]

"the rule of law cannot tolerate the pardoning of law violations by the law's opponents through jury acquittals".

No because the statement is wrong. Juries have always acquitted obviously guilty defendants. OJ being the most notorious. Once again you fail to comprehend.

[tpaine]

What do I fail to comprehend?

Do you agree with this portion?
  
----   "To do so would be to deny the right of the majority to pass laws binding on dissenters, and each man would become a law unto himself."
     

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

In fact, an early supreme court case approved giving juries instructions that they had the right of nullification.

In 1794, John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury in the case Georgia v. Brailsford:

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."

[Texasforever]

"To do so would be to deny the right of the majority to pass laws binding on dissenters, and each man would become a law unto himself."

It is a false premise. There is NO way a jury will ever assume the role of the Supreme Court and strike down laws they disagree with resulting in a law being stricken from the books. They only have the unchallenged power decide within their private deliberations that they are not going to convict a defendant charged with violating the law itself.

[tpaine]

Thanks, -- its good to see you back down from your majority rule position on drug & gun law.

You seem to be learning respect for our bill of rights. - Congrats.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

Late 19th century, I believe, so not that early. But certainly not a new right.

In the Magna Carta, the phrase "unless by judgement of our peers" is repeated numerous times. In "Trial by Jury", Lysander Spooner documents that a trial of the whole case by an impartial jury of the people is an ancient right that pre-dates Magna Carta. This right wasn't seriously attacked in America until the mid-19th century.

"During the first third of the nineteenth century,...judges frequently charged juries that they were the judges of law as well as the fact and were not bound by the judge's instructions. A charge that the jury had the right to consider the law had a corollary at the level of trial procedure: counsel had the right to argue the law its interpretation and its validity to the jury."--The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174,(1964).

[Psycho Francis]

Thanks, but my comment was directed specifically at the mention of a Supreme Court case.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

The 1794 Georgia v. Brailsford case is a supreme court case.

[Texasforever]

You seem to be learning respect for our bill of rights. - Congrats.

Tpaine don't patronize me, you are not equipped.