Jury Duty as Gigantic Waste of Time

[Jim Finnel]

I love jury duty. I really do. Civic pride, the American way, whodunnits, sitting in judgment — what’s not to like?

But I didn’t love jury duty today. Because today, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center, I had to witness the gigantic waste of time, money, labor, energy and brains that is expended on taking a single individual to trial for the alleged crime of “trafficking in cannabis.”

I never got to find out how the case turned out. Maybe that’s because, when the prosecuting attorney asked if any of the prospective jurors would have a problem judging this case impartially, I spoke up with a version of what I just said above. And I didn’t say it to get out of serving — if it had been murder, theft, Hogan family collisions, hey, I’m there for you, court system. (And the state’s attorney looked like a younger Harry Connick, Jr., so there was at least eye candy to entertain us.) But I just couldn’t see the point of assembling all this machinery — judge and bailiff and clerk and lawyers and a roomful of jurors — for this: one guy who allegedly sold some dope.

And I wasn’t the only conscientious objector in the room. By the time attorneys on both sides had completed their extensive (and I do mean extensive) voir dire, it looked like the court would be lucky to find anyone to serve. One by one came the objections: from a woman who believes the drug war is stacked against black males (she was white; the defendant was black); from another woman who’d seen friends wrongly accused; and from people like me who feel marijuana should be legal and regulated, like alcohol, and that someone who sells it should no more be put in jail than the guy who runs the neighborhood liquor store.

But six jurors were called. The rest of us filed out, relieved. But Harry Connick Jr., Jr., if you need me for anything else, just call.


News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Creative Loafing
Author: David Warner
Copyright: 2009 Creative Loafing Media
Contact: Contact Us | Creative Loafing Sarasota
Website: Jury Duty as Gigantic Waste of Time | the 941

 

[Paladin]

The best thing that you could have done was to get on the jury and then , by means of " jurist nullification " , render a not guilty verdict. This is the way to repeal the laws that shouldn't be laws . The power of the jurist is the true power of the individual. It makes the ordinary man more powerful than all the congressmen , presidents , and judges combined . They can write all the laws , sign them into law , and adjudicate them ..... but if they can't convict .... sooner or later the laws will become null and void.

 

[Paladin]

google the term ," jury nullification" , or , "the jurist handbook ", to understand the great power vested in the individual.

 

[Jim Finnel]

i think the word 'as' in the title is non-defining like the word 'is' would have been.

i was wondering how long it would take for a member to bring up jury nullification. i'm always glad when jury nullification gets brought up.

no need to go off seaching:
Jury Nullification
POT JURY REBELLION



Section I
A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS

Jury Duty!
The purpose of this information if to revive, as Jefferson put it, "The Ancient Principles." It is not designed to promote lawlessness or a return to the jungle. The "Ancient Principle" refer to the Ten Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just plain common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments.

In 1776 we came out of BONDAGE with FAITH, UNDERSTANDING and COURAGE. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled our way to achieve LIBERTY. LIBERTY is that delicate area between the force of government and FREEWILL of man. LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go and live wherever one wishes; it leads to ABUNDANCE. ABUNDANCE, if made an end in itself, will result in COMPLACENCY which leads to APATHY. APATHY is the "let George do it" philosophy. This always brings DEPENDENCY. For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are dependent. They delude themselves by thinking they are still free - "We never had it so good." - "We can still vote, can 't we?" Eventually abudance diminishes and DEPENDENCY becomes known by its true nature: BONDANGE!!!

There are few ways out of bondage. Bloodshed and war aften result, but our founding fathers learned of a better way. Realizing that a CREATOR is always above and greater than that which He creates, they established a three vote system by which an informed Citizenry can control those acting in the name of govenment. To be a good master you must always remember the true "pecking order" or chain of command in this nation:
1. GOD created man...
2. Man (that's you) created the Constitution
3. The Constitution created government...
4. Government created corporations...etc.

The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.

As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American Citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.

The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: "A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor."

The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.

YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!

As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:

"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."

"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite."

"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court."

"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resove this paradox."

"More than logic has suffered. As orignally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to funciton effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions."

"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then Citizens called for jury duty could teach the judge a needed lesson in civics."

This information is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation's founders provided to insure that you, (not the growing army of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats, rule this nation. It will focus on the true power you possess as a JUROR, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also the validity or application of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a JUROR.

One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUILTY VOTE!" He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!
Everett Hale

The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!

"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.

The truth of this question has been answered by many testimonies and historical events. Consider the following:

JURY RIGHTS

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice

United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,

1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes,

U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice

U.S. supreme Court, 1941

"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)

LAW OF THE LAND

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256


Source

 

[chancedebris]

I am never called. Both sides know my record in civil rights, union and progessive activities. But neither side wants to take a chance with someone who had demnstrated willingness to be independent and think for themselves. Is it possible that I'm considered by some to be bullshit proof?

 

[Jim Finnel]

I guess Native civilizations weren't "people" this country was built on the backs of Indigenous humans and black slaves. Manifest Destiny is just a spin on genocide

i'm not sure what your referencing? whats this got to do with manifest destiny?

it wasn't just built on their backs. it was stolen by force using any means nessesary. i'm part (the best part) cherokee and very proud of it but this all seems a bit off topic???

 

[Keith Lake]

The best thing that you could have done was to get on the jury and then , by means of " jurist nullification " , render a not guilty verdict.

Amen - you are so right.

If prosecutors keep losing pot cases due to nullifcation (i.e. a not guilty verdict on principle even if the case in chief was proved) then they will not waste time and resources on trying these cases

Another front in the war on cannabis where we can make a difference.

 

[MR.keifbox]

I beleave that it will turn around in another 10 years or so. reason is that just the other day i was listening to led zeplin while i was on hold with unemployment. think about it the generation that is becoming more liberal than ever WILL BE MAKING THE NEW DECISSIONS! So the key is not to fight now but to edjucate the future.

 

[chancedebris]

In order to continue resistance, the first step is to get on the jury to begin with. In spite of all the b.s. in the courtroom, the juror should not be the only one to be truthful. Everyone who favors decrim, should keep this in mind. As long as they want a war on weed it is our job to resist with any means possible.

 

[Jim Finnel]

i agree.
you must lie if nessesary to get on juries in marijuana cases.

the cops/prosecutors lie. its like they say "turn about is fair play"