Jury Nullification

Jim Finnel

Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
You have more power than you might think......

Jury Nullification
by Doug Linder (2001)

What is jury nullification?Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

When has jury nullification been practiced?The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

Do juries have the right to nullify?Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so?That's a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.

Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

Source

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.[Edmund Burke]

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.[Martin Luther King Jr.]

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them [Henry David Thoreau]
 
I've neen advocating this for years. Even if you don't vote, register to vote and then maybe you'll get lucky and sit on one of these tax paying waste court cases. It only takes one out of 12 to vote not guilty and they either have to retry the case or drop it. If enough tokers get on these juries and vote not guilty eventually they'll just have to give up trying these persona;l use drug crimes.
 
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]
 
The sad part is that with over 70% of the US population smoking or have smoked cannabis and they don't seem to be paying attention in the jury box. Any non violent drug crime should be acquited by atleast one juror. My personal opinion of why this isn't happening is because the only people that seem to sit on juries are old retired farts like me. We need some younger people to get on these juries. Thats why its important that you register to vote.
 
I was recently selected to do jury duty what a fun day. sadly i wasn't on a jury just sat there for 4 hours and read the paper. I had this on my mind the entire time. I wish I could have been on a jury in a cannabis case I would have argued for this the entire time.
 
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
 
Thank you Umpsy! Beautiful!! What every Cannabis supporter needs to know!!! I needed to know it! Big Hugs!!


Hey Man, Where da killa?? Oh Hi KillerWeed!! How arrgh ya?? I agree with what you say and would like to add that I am in opposition of the prisons being built here in texas just to hold non violent offenders. I feel that the numbers of people being put there because of Cannabis should not only be disturbing, but something should be done about it.

Education is a key. a necessary key that does indeed take precedence, but there are others.
Organization is a key as well. We need to organize the facts in a manner presentable to the chiefs of the land.
Unity is a key as well, A house devided against itself cannot stand. Look at the Democratic party. They were devided; Obama/Clinton. They had to unite and come together for the betterment of their party. They had to set aside their differences And they did.:allgood:
and then you have Stratagy which is a very important key. As well.

We can do it!

I say we can do it!!
I say we can make a difference!!


:rollit::allgood::rollit:


 
Thank you Umpsy! Beautiful!! What every Cannabis supporter needs to know!!! I needed to know it! Big Hugs!!


Hey Man, Where da killa?? Oh Hi KillerWeed!! How arrgh ya?? I agree with what you say and would like to add that I am in opposition of the prisons being built here in texas just to hold non violent offenders. I feel that the numbers of people being put there because of Cannabis should not only be disturbing, but something should be done about it.

Education is a key. a necessary key that does indeed take precedence, but there are others.
Organization is a key as well. We need to organize the facts in a manner presentable to the chiefs of the land.
Unity is a key as well, A house devided against itself cannot stand. Look at the Democratic party. They were devided; Obama/Clinton. They had to unite and come together for the betterment of their party. They had to set aside their differences And they did.:allgood:
and then you have Stratagy which is a very important key. As well.

We can do it!

I say we can do it!!
I say we can make a difference!!


:rollit::allgood::rollit:



Optimism overload!!!!lol
I wish I could be that optimistic.:ganjamon:
 
The Citizens Rule Book

JURY HANDBOOK

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
 
I'm 100% for the concept of jury nullification. It's one of the last checks against government power that's left available to the citizenry

I would however caution my friends to practice it quietly.

Vote you conscience but don't get yourself excluded during voir dire for being too open and don't get yourself in trouble with the judge for practicing (a lot of judges are way way hard against this).

Your vote is your own and you don't have to speak about why you vote a certain way if you don't want to
 
Right on!! You said it brother, the more stoners that register to vote and sit on a jury for a marijuana convictions and vote "NOT GUILTY", eventually the judicial system will give up trying these cases.

Why is the possession for ******* in most States a lesser penalty than for cr*ck *******? Because most ******* users were found to spend more time and resources fighting the charges than one convicted for cr*ck *******. Cr*ck ******* users usually plead out because they lack the resources to challenge their charges.

Guilty pleas usually comes w/a financial penalty and if fewer individuals are being found guilty of marijuana convictions, eventually this will no longer make fiscal sense and legislation will change to afford the State better financial rewards.
 
My state actually has code written that Judges must use when instructing a jury and it clearly limits the role the jury may play... the facts

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom