Jury Nullification

[Weed420]

This thread is awesome, and depressing. My state actually has code written that Judges must use when instructing a jury and it clearly limits the role the jury may play... judge the facts, not the law (yes, I'm paraphrasing)

IF every person arrested for possession chose a jury trial it would most likely bankrupt the courts... at least of their time!

IF every Lover of Justice were to quietly say "yes, I will serve" when called to jury duty, they could throw a huge wrench in this whole issue employing nullification tactics.

These are mighty big IF's because prosecutors will use our misshapen laws stacking charge on top of charge to scare the victim away from a jury trial and at the end of the day, most of us will opt for the shorter, less expensive way out of the mess.

Maybe some clever designer could devise an easily reproduced STAMP or STICKER to put on every baggie sold...

"Know your Rights! Visit Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association"

I'm hopeful that this war is dying down, but the struggle at the end will be difficult and this war has already been Very Bloody

This si standard practice in most states for the judge to admonish jurors that they are only allowed to decide on the facts, you are not allowed to use compassion in deliberations. And really if you''re not allowed to use a little compassion what kind of a country have we become?
I have a bunch of small booklets that Alex Jines puts out that explains the jury nullification process along with the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Not really a fan of Alex Jones but I buy these booklets in bulk and place them in courthouse in my area so people can be eductaed a little. Would recommend other people try to do the same thing in your areas.

 

[Green Utopia]

Yes, but this is a trick in my opinion.

Definitionally, the jury is the "finder of facts" so regardless of how they parse the words, the jury still has the final say.

I agree completely. The worst that would happen is you are dismissed as a juror. Best case you convince a few others.

 

[McCrackin]

So on this issue, IF you get chosen to be in the jury and you are honest about the questions you are asked in Voire Dire, you have every right to just go in the back and say not guilty because of your feelings on the evidence.

What you are not allowed to do is exclaim that you are nullifying with your vote, broadcasting your intentions that you are not going to follow instructions from the judge.

So if you get picked and then they show you the video of Lindsey Lohan stealing the necklace, and they zoom onto her face as she is leaving the store and she exclaims on camera, "I am stealing this shit, right here, right now" but you decide not guilty because you felt strongly about the defense's evidence... you can say not guilty.

That is your right as Juror int he USA

 

[michael darre]

The article neglects to mention that Jury Nullification only works when the law being applied is in violation of the state or US constitution.

In the case of the Marijuana possesion; the 'Federal Controlled Substances Act' is in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments of the US constitution. It helps to read the 10th then the 9th.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

-Umpsy

Look into the definition of the term "Drug" very carefully. The answer is the "man or other animals" defense. There are numerous video's on you tube by al adask as well as his site Adask's law

Currently he an Randy Kelton from Rule of Law radio have criminal charges on Texas government officials for jailing people with drug charges. These two guys don't quit and don't loose.

I get bits a pieces of the latest developments because I am friends with one of Randys partners. The end result of this litigation will be the end of the Drug War, be patient my friends if you get in trouble sample pleadings are publishwd on the internet it is a very simple but powerful argument. Read all you can and arm yourself with knowledge.

 

[ElusiveQuark]

Judges have JNOV option which can be worrisome?

Jury Nullification as described in Wikipedia
Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1]

Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant's violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found.

Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. "Jury nullification" is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

Despite perceived righteous applications of jury nullification, this verdict anomaly can also occur simply as a device to absolve a defendant of culpability. Sympathy, bias or prejudice can influence some jurors to wholly disregard evidence and instruction in favor of a sort of "jury forgiveness."

" I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. "
–Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

" The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. "
–John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court



Historical examples include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[2] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,[4] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[5]

 

[deepelemblues]

The right of a jury to acquit for any reason it wants to acquit - essentially, jury nullification - has been upheld by the courts, but unfortunately it has been ruled that even informing the jury that they have that right is a no-no, because it "threatens the integrity of the judicial system."

Never mind that the Fifth Amendment directly and the Fourteenth Amendment indirectly (due process clause in the Fifth, equal protection clause of the Fourteenth) protect the right to argue for jury nullification as a defense; in the ass-backwards logic of the courts, the "integrity of the judicial system" trumps the Constitution.

If the jury has the right to acquit for reason X, you have the right to use reason X as a defense. Except you don't, because the drug warriors know that if judges didn't disallow nullification defenses, everyone charged with a marijuana-related crime would demand a jury trial and use a nullification defense, and too many jury trials (and too many acquittals) would crash the system. They don't have the money or the time to handle that many jury trials, and can't suffer the embarrassment of too many defeats. Of course that shouldn't be our problem, but since they hold all the cards that's the way they make it.

 

[Keith Lake]

The right of a jury to acquit for any reason it wants to acquit - essentially, jury nullification - has been upheld by the courts, but unfortunately it has been ruled that even informing the jury that they have that right is a no-no, because it "threatens the integrity of the judicial system."

Never mind that the Fifth Amendment directly and the Fourteenth Amendment indirectly (due process clause in the Fifth, equal protection clause of the Fourteenth) protect the right to argue for jury nullification as a defense; in the ass-backwards logic of the courts, the "integrity of the judicial system" trumps the Constitution.

If the jury has the right to acquit for reason X, you have the right to use reason X as a defense. Except you don't, because the drug warriors know that if judges didn't disallow nullification defenses, everyone charged with a marijuana-related crime would demand a jury trial and use a nullification defense, and too many jury trials (and too many acquittals) would crash the system. They don't have the money or the time to handle that many jury trials, and can't suffer the embarrassment of too many defeats. Of course that shouldn't be our problem, but since they hold all the cards that's the way they make it.

Excellent points

Spreading Cannabis awareness, and related supported topics = trying get the world to understand the concept of jury nullification.

I wish everyone here read this thread and told all of their friends who in turn told all of their friends,

The people hold the ultimate check against governmental power. They can make all the rules of evidence they want but if all the people understand that "guilty" only means what the people in the jury room decide, we'll retain the power.

 

[TorturedSoul]

The right of a jury to acquit for any reason it wants to acquit - essentially, jury nullification - has been upheld by the courts, but unfortunately it has been ruled that even informing the jury that they have that right is a no-no, because it "threatens the integrity of the judicial system."

Not fully-informing juries of both their responsibilities AND powers "threatens the integrity of the judicial system." In fact, it nullifies it entirely.

I agree that it is not the defense counsel's place to explain this to the jury. It is the judge's.

Failing do so should be grounds for an immediate and permanent removal from the bench for malfeasance and perversion of the justice system.

Unfortunately, it's not. Write - an actual physical letter (sending it in such a way that it must be signed for doesn't hurt, either, but costs more) - to all of your government officials from your mayor/city council to the President.

I have. It doesn't seem to have helped. Maybe another 100,000,000 or so letters would make a suitable impact, lol? (Especially if they are all mailed on the same day.)

 

[medMUser]

Great thread!! Thanks to the max for putting it up!

There is a lot of good info to study. I did searches using the terms

Jury nullification is alive and well in USA

Jury Nullification is legal in USA

Jury Nullification in [Name of your state]

Jury nullification and pot users

Just copy & paste the phrases in a search. You may use other terms to see if you can find even more info. JN is a powerful tool we can use to enforce our freedoms when unjust or un-Constitutional laws are used for arresting & trying people.

Now you know why jury duty is much more than a 'burden' to be endured. Jury duty is a line of defense against big oppressive govt. Learn about it so you can use it. It's OUR hind end on the line! So do what ya can to cover it!

mM

 

[medMUser]

So on this issue, IF you get chosen to be in the jury and you are honest about the questions you are asked in Voire Dire, you have every right to just go in the back and say not guilty because of your feelings on the evidence.

What you are not allowed to do is exclaim that you are nullifying with your vote, broadcasting your intentions that you are not going to follow instructions from the judge.

So if you get picked and then they show you the video of Lindsey Lohan stealing the necklace, and they zoom onto her face as she is leaving the store and she exclaims on camera, "I am stealing this shit, right here, right now" but you decide not guilty because you felt strongly about the defense's evidence... you can say not guilty.

That is your right as Juror int he USA

Good points till you got to your example. Laws against stealing are not unjust. True, you can vote not guilty for Lohan, but if there is the kind of evidence you used, she'd be guilty & I would not nullify in this case. Not ALL laws are unjust or un-Constitutional.

To nullify for a person obviously guilty of a just law is misuse of JN. That gives the enemies of freedom ammo to use against JN.

JN is a very important tool to use in the cause of justice & against big bro govt. We must use it wisely & fairly.

mM

 

[Keith Lake]

Sentencing by jury is a very good backup to jury nullification. If the judge don't allow discussion of jury nullification in the jury room, then the jury can refuse to sentence the person or reduce the sentence to almost nothing. Trial by jury means sentencing by jury. Because every sentencing requires the review of the facts to make a sentencing determination. The jury should be allow to reject mandatory minimums.

To my knowledge the judge can't stop anything In the jury room since deliberations are secret. The judge can instruct the jury before they begin deliberations that nullification is not allowed or that this and that can and can't be considered, but once the doors close, all you need is one educated jurist to either explain to the others or to keep his mouth shut and obstruct things by himself - since it only takes one.

My advice - consider the latter and don't speak of it later

 

[ladymad]

There has been a successful jury nullification case here in NH. Encouraging since NH has a law on the books for MMJ patients but will not let us access cards. There some happy endings!!

 

[Keith Lake]

There has been a successful jury nullification case here in NH. Encouraging since NH has a law on the books for MMJ patients but will not let us access cards. There some happy endings!!

I'll bet it had to end every day in every state - privately and quietly

 

[Shandar]

It is rare that a jury ignores the law to set a defendant free. Usually, a lesser included offense is the compromise a jury makes. I have observed it happening most frequently in favor of the prosecution and to the defendant's dismay.

Often, an unlikeable defendant, or one that the jury cannot empathize with will result in a conviction based on "feelings" or character evidence rather than the evidence presented. The law is presented to the jury in the form of jury instructions that read like Old English and they are far from clear. This leaves the jury having to go with their gut rather than the law. Once the verdict is rendered there is no way to verify that they applied the law correctly - and who can afford an appeal?

Further, in order to result in a "free defendant" (one that the prosecution cannot re-try in numerous trials) the jury cannot hang, they must acquit. At least one juror must specifically claim the defendant is Not Guilty of the law charged, and they have sworn to the Lord they will apply the law.

I like the idea of jury nullification, but have found the result does not further our civil rights very often and usually aids the prosecutorial machine.

 

[tucker88]

What do you do when the Judge will allow you to mentioned this to a jury?

 

[Keith Lake]

What do you do when the Judge will allow you to mentioned this to a jury?

My impression is that judges are generally against nullification.

Still, there's no need to say it out loud or seek the judges consent. If you are on the pool and you think the law being applied is wrong, then you alone can stop it.

The judge can remove jurors they deem to be impartial

Personally, I would not agree to be seated if I didn't think I could be impartial. But if I am seated and hear the case and feel the prosecutor is overzealous or the law being applied is unfair, then I'll exercise my right to determine guilt or innocence based on my morals, not the instructions.

 

[SweetSue]

This is a provocative thread and one that should have generated more interest, but then my experience is we shy away from our civic responsibilities more often than not, don't we?

I've sat on two juries, both criminal trials, one as foreman. Earlier in this discussion I read something that brought to my mind that it's the foreman's responsibility to see to it that the jury is informed of the facts as presented and to control, to a certain extent, the discussions around that table. In a perfect world ego doesn't come into play.

My overriding sense about juries though, is that they don't like to convict. In this discussion I believe Soniq420 has the correct approach. Educate yourself as to your rights as a citizen of this great country of ours and the freedoms you have in that jury room, but keep that to yourself. If you can find some way to persuade other jurors on the merits of the case without alerting the court to your intent to stop the injustice through your own vote - it only takes one - then make your impassioned arguments. When you get to that vote, no one knows what yours was. No one should.

An honest juror is one who goes in with an open mind. Life isn't often black and white and a jury or juror that made up its mind before the case was heard scares the bejeezers out of me. That applies to cannabis cases too.

As a trained educator I've often been frustrated at how little we teach our children about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. I homeschooled mine, so they were better prepared to be active citizens. We'd evolve more smoothly as a nation, I believe, if we trained our young better for civic responsibility. I'm such an optimist. I still have such hope for us as a country, as a planet. Surely we're capable of better.

 

[Keith Lake]

The last defense again tyranny is the jury trial,

 

[stonerdude]

Wow, this thread is really informative

 

[Sharprio]

Marihuana tax act.'