Jury Nullification: Essential rights every American should understand

[rambone]

One of the last resorts in resisting oppressive government is to flat out refuse to convict a person who is obviously "guilty" of breaking their laws. Every juror has the right to vote his conscience. If the law is evil, oppressive, unconstitutional, or violates individual liberty, then the defendant should be released. At one time juries were routinely informed that they have the right to judge both the facts and the law.

We need to understand this and spread the knowledge.


Here's one of the better summary videos I've seen.

A Layman's Guide to Jury Nullification:
[video=youtube;mxYUr6CNopQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxYUr6CNopQ[/video]


Jurors' Handbook: A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty
Jury Nullification: What lawyers and judges won't tell you about juries

Famous examples of Jury Nullification throughout history:
Examples of Jury Nullification Throughout History

Join the Fully Informed Jury Association
www.fija.org
Fully Informed Jury Association | Facebook

 

[rambone]

JURY RIGHTS "Jury Nullification" Taught by Ron Paul
Part 1
[video=youtube;rkea7DwfVb4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkea7DwfVb4[/video]

 

[rambone]

JURY RIGHTS "Jury Nullification" Taught by Ron Paul
Part 2
[video=youtube;3yBs_FZo0Sg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBs_FZo0Sg[/video]

 

[rambone]

1990s flashback: A law professor debates a freedom-illiterate talk show host.

Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher - Jury Nullification w/ Professor Paul Butler
[video=youtube;Lf8tBcp7-_E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8tBcp7-_E[/video]

 

[Chesh97]

And that is really stupid. What if they don't agree with the law of self defense? They don't think it's right you took another persons life, and "disregard" the law, and find you guilty.

If we don't agree with the laws, we need to have our representatives change them. If they don't, we need to get new representation.

 

[tirebay1997]

Any chance of finding a jury educated enough to do this?

 

[Trigger Time]

Any chance of finding a jury educated enough to do this?

Fat chance. Look at the president that's in office.
id have no problem doing this. But now this post just disqualified me from ever being a juror if any prosecutor sees it.
ive almos lost all faith in our judicial system. I lost ALL faith in the electoral process a long time ago as a whole. There are still a few good elected officials but they are rapidly becoming the minority or else we wouldn't be talking about jury nullification.

 

[jedi]

And that is really stupid. What if they don't agree with the law of self defense? They don't think it's right you took another persons life, and "disregard" the law, and find you guilty.

If we don't agree with the laws, we need to have our representatives change them. If they don't, we need to get new representation.

but in your example above that would not be jury nullification or would it?
lets take the zimmerman case. say the jury does not agree with the law (ie. self defense) and finds zimmerman guilty of 2nd degree murder. that is not jury nullification but outright being found guilty of the law.

my understanding of jury nullification is the jury is tossing out the law itself.
for example say zimmerman is being charged with possession of weed.
jury uses jury nullification to say yes zim had weed but we dont believe weed should be illegal as such zim is free to go since we are nullifiying the weed law in this case.

 

[pudly]

I watched all 4 videos. Good info, but the first video is the short version of #2 + #3. I don't recommend wasting your time watching all three.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Article 1, Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Straight from the Indiana Constitution. `Nuf sed.

 

[rambone]

And that is really stupid. What if they don't agree with the law of self defense? They don't think it's right you took another persons life, and "disregard" the law, and find you guilty.

If we don't agree with the laws, we need to have our representatives change them. If they don't, we need to get new representation.

Rephrased, you're asking, "What if the juror agrees with the Prosecutor?" Obviously then they will vote guilty. However, it takes a unanimous verdict to convict the defendant. It only takes one unconvinced juror to set the defendant free.

Put yourself in a juror's shoes in New York. Would you send a man to prison for loading 8 bullets in his pistol magazine, instead of 7? That is a juror's chance to prevent someone from getting oppressed.

 

[edporch]

I remember reading some time back, that in the early days of this country, juries were also instructed to judge the rightness or wrongness of the law itself, in addition to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

[mrjarrell]

I remember reading some time back, that in the early days of this country, juries were also instructed to judge the rightness or wrongness of the law itself, in addition to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Just the opposite occurs in most jurisdictions nowadays. The judge stacks the jury against the defendant. Thankfully the Indiana Constitution allows for jury nullification and there isn't a damned thing a judge can do about it.

 

[jedi]

Just the opposite occurs in most jurisdictions nowadays. The judge stacks the jury against the defendant. Thankfully the Indiana Constitution allows for jury nullification and there isn't a damned thing a judge can do about it.

Except
- NOT inform the jury of this
- weed out all those potential juries that would consider this
- ban anyone from handing out jury nullification information near the court house
(Rambone has posted articles about this and how people handing out this info have been arrested and kicked off public property!)

 

[jdhaines]

This is my favorite article on Jury Nullification:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf

It's written by James Duane who is the guy from the famous "Don't Talk to the Police" video.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Just the opposite occurs in most jurisdictions nowadays. The judge stacks the jury against the defendant. Thankfully the Indiana Constitution allows for jury nullification and there isn't a damned thing a judge can do about it.

Except refuse defense requests to include A1,§19 in jury instructions.

 

[mrjarrell]

Except
- NOT inform the jury of this
- weed out all those potential juries that would consider this
- ban anyone from handing out jury nullification information near the court house
(Rambone has posted articles about this and how people handing out this info have been arrested and kicked off public property!)

Except refuse defense requests to include A1,§19 in jury instructions.

True, jury stacking goes on here, too. But we, at least, have a Constitutionally guaranteed Right to judge the law, as well as the facts. We cannot rely on crooked judges and prosecutors to inform us of our Rights and responsibilities as jurors. It's always going to be in our hands as long as the system remains the way it is.

 

[Degtyaryov]

I know it's written into the indiana constitution.

 

[Jludo]

That's a surefire way to get out of jury duty, tell the judge you believe in jury nullification. I had a buddy who was called up for jury duty but let go when he answered the 'wrong way' when asked a question about jury nullification.

Also I read about it happening fairly recently in New Hampshire when a jury found a guy non guilty of cultivating Marijuana. And the new law they recently passed which permits the defense to inform the jury of jury nullification.

New Hampshire Jury Acquits Pot-Growing Rastafarian - Hit & Run : Reason.com
"New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed a bill declaring that "in all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy." Although the new law does not take effect until next January, a case decided yesterday in Belknap County illustrates the importance of the nullification power it recognizes. A jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old Rastafarian charged with marijuana cultivation, after his lawyer, Mark Sisti, argued that a conviction would be unjust"

 

[jdhaines]

I think the rub comes in when you make it a "thing." We use the phrase jury nullification to describe the idea that the jury can decide any way they want with no consequences. That idea, however, doesn't have a formal name. When a judge says there is no such thing as jury nullification, the judge understands the idea but doesn't want it to be a circus. If the jurors know they can decide the facts and the law, and cannot be held liable or questioned as to why they found one way or another (ever) the idea is clear. You can't "jury nullify." You can vote the way that you feel is correct. Guilty or not guilty. No one outside that jury room needs to know your reasoning and you sure as hell don't need to explain. If you feel he was guilty but the law was BS...you find not guilty and go on with the rest of your life. You don't vote not guilty to nullify the law. It's subtle, but significant. This idea is part of your duties as a juror and have been since the beginning...it's not a special thing you can do while you happen to be sitting on a jury.