POLITICS - Jury Nullification

[Kismet]

I hope Paul doesn't mind me continuing this offshoot of one of the locked threads, but I wanted to address the issue of jury nullification that was raised.

Jury nullification is no more or less than juror(s) choosing to disregard the judge's instruction of the law and find someone not guilty because he or she does not agree with the law itself. For example, if I think drugs should be legal, I could choose to nullify the law by refusing to convict someone who is guilty. In all likelihood, I am only going to hang the jury because criminal juries have to be unanimous in all but two states. This will result in a mistrial and the State has the option of re-trying the defendant. (Just as with a conviction, acquittal must be unanimous.) If you were the only one holding out and causing the nullification, the defendant is going to be retried; if it was 11 to 1 to acquit, it is probably going to be dropped.

As I said, the result of nullification is that the defendant is acquitted. It has absolutely no effect on the law on the books and there are no further proceedings or appeals. It could have a practical effect if it happened repeatedly, but quite honestly, that is unlikely. The next person could easily be convicted of the same charge if the twelve people on his/her jury applied the law given by the judge.

And, while it is very unlikely that anyone would be held in contempt for mentioning jury nullification during trial (unless it happened repeatedly) it would be a quick way for a defense attorney to cause a mistrial (or probably to get you booted from the jury pool).

Michael in NH

[AJMD429]

http://fija.org/ has good information on this topic...

[Hobie]

I understand that in Henderson County, KY, it was next to impossible to get a conviction for marijuana growing. Don't know if this is true or still true.

I also understand that the jury found the defendents in a Mount Carmel/Waco/David Koresh connected case not guilty and the judge reversed that and sent them to jail. Don't know how that worked IF I understood/remember it correctly.

[Old Time Hunter]

Can a judge reverse a juries decision? That does not sound right, hate to think that one person has that kind of power.

[Hobie]

Can a judge reverse a juries decision? That does not sound right, hate to think that one person has that kind of power.

I don't know, just remember reading that. Don't even know which court.

[Kismet]

Can a judge reverse a juries decision? That does not sound right, hate to think that one person has that kind of power.

I don't know, just remember reading that. Don't even know which court.

I guess I can't say such a thing is impossible in criminal cases because I just don't know. But I have never heard of such a thing and, being the suspicious type, I would suspect that that piece of information was either untrue or misinterpreted. Judge's certainly can overturn a guilty conviction and can overturn jury verdicts either way in some situations in civil cases.

I did some quick looking about on the web and found nothing to substantiate that the judge overturned a not guilty verdict. (He did disregard an advisory jury's recommendation on sentencing and something weird happened where he may have reinstated a guilty conviction after initially overturning it.)

As far as the fear that one person has so much power, I bet you don't mind it if he overturns a guilty conviction! Right?

Michael in NH

[AJMD429]

I think there was something along the lines of a 'gun charge' which they were found NOT guilty of, but a 'some other crime committed while in possession of an illegal gun' charge which the jury was told they could be found guilty of (which I guess they were) but that since the 'in possession' phrase was part of the charge, and they were found NOT guilty of the gun charge, it would all be thrown out and they would be released.

Anyway, I do remember interviews of some very unhappy jurors who said they felt deceived by the judge.

[Old Ironsights]

The history of Jury Nullification in the US can be traced back to the Trial of John Peter Zenger in 1753.

Zenger, a local and relatively obscure New York City Printer (may as well call him a Blogger or Webzien) was charged with Seditious Libel by the Crown.

When the Judge, following following Legal Protocol, refused to allow Andrew Hamilton, Zenger's Attorney, to introduce evidence of the truth of Zenger's writing, he switched tactics and asked the jury to rule on the LAW.

He argued that Truth is an absolute defense to libel - and did so to a jury that was familiar with the facts that were written about. He further argued that the responsibility of judging LAWS was a responsibility if the Juror.

In so arguing, he convinced the jury to disregard the Judge and the "law", override and nullify the Court an acquit the defendant.

The idea that a Jury is a representative of the Will of the People became an important theme in the ongoing arguments about American Freedoms.

I suggest anyone wanting to understand what it REALLY means to be on a Jury read "The Trial of John Peter Zenger" by James Alexander.

We are a nation of Law, not laws - and the difference lies in nullifying then repealing the ones that lie outside the boundres of the Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[bj94]

I'm a little new to the concept of "jury nullification", but it came up after a trial I was involved in several years ago. It makes sense that an individual jury and an individual defendant is facing almost impossible odds in changing a law. But I was thinking about this and in the trial I was involved in, the law itself wasn't necessarily at fault but how it was applied to the defendant in this case was in question. I as a juror, if I followed the judge's instructions, had to find the defendant guilty, and that was the outcome of the trial. However I still didn't think it was right, and felt that it would have been reasonable for the jury to have found the defendant innocent.

Here's the gist of the case- a woman buys a piece of furniture at a store that is going out of business. The husband goes back several days later to pick up the furniture. The store is out of business, closed for good, but the husband has made an appointment to pick up the furniture and the owner is there waiting. The owner tells the husband to pack in the handicap parking spot at the front door so they can more easily load the furniture. This city has auxiliary police officers, citizens that want to be police so they are empowered by the city to do things like write tickets for parking infractions, and one of these gungho citizens writes a ticket to the husband parked in the handicap parking place. Now remember that this store is closed and out of business, essentially a vacant building in a vacant parking lot, but there is still a sign painted on the pavement so in theory the husband IS in violation of the law. In this case, the law itself wasn't in question but how it was applied to this defendant. He may have violated the letter of the law, but maybe not the spirit of the law. Strictly per the judge's instructions, there was really no question that this man was guilty.

I like to think in terms of logic and what-if's. So if you are guilty when you park in front of a store that is in business, and you are still guilty if you park in front of a store that is closed and out of business, then what about after the store is torn down and there is only a parking lot remaining? What about when the parking lot deteriorates and gets grown over with weeds, but there is still a spot where you can read the painted markings on the pavement? What about when the contractor is there with a bulldozer tearing up the pavement, does he dare not run his bulldozer over that small piece of pavement becasue a gung-ho want-to-be-police officer will come by and give him a ticket?

[Kismet]

one of these gungho citizens writes a ticket to the husband parked in the handicap parking place.

I am flabbergasted that a) this guy was written a ticket; b) you are allowed a jury trial in TX for a parking ticket; c) you didn't all vote to acquit out of sheer anger at being forced to "waste" a day on that nonsense by the prosecutor; and/or d) you didn't all vote to convict out of the sheer nonsense of the defendant pushing that to a trial. You jurors could have pooled the $12 or so dollars you each got paid, paid his stupid parking ticket (probably twice over), and saved (or taken) a day off.

Michael in NH

[rimrock]

A judge can reverse a jury's decision based on a question of law, but not on properly issued jury charge. Jury nuullification is more frequent than you might imagine.

True story-- A dad shot a rapist in the back as the rapist was crossing the front porch after as the rapist was attempting to flee the crime scene. Technically, the use of deadly force was no longer justified, but the jury acquited the dad of attempted murder.

[AJMD429]

Not too long ago it was a serious crime to hide a runaway slave. The idea would be that if such a law existed today, the jury could say "sure, we all saw the video, the fingerprints, and the DNA evidence that prove the defendant hid the runaway slave, but we think it is a STUPID law, so we aren't going to convict this person - go suck eggs."

Of course we all know now that there are surely NO stupid laws on the books anymore, certainly not stupid GUN laws...

[El Chivo]

I was in a jury pool not too long ago and had to listen to the judge tell us we must apply the law as written, not to let our point of view cloud our decision.

I thought about it and decided that it would be a mistake to be so objective that I'm just a rubber stamp for the judge or lawyers. If I think the letter of the law is an injustice, I'd ignore it, regardless of instructions.

If they don't like it then don't give me a vote.

[Grizz]

I was in a jury pool not too long ago and had to listen to the judge tell us we must apply the law as written, not to let our point of view cloud our decision.

I thought about it and decided that it would be a mistake to be so objective that I'm just a rubber stamp for the judge or lawyers. If I think the letter of the law is an injustice, I'd ignore it, regardless of instructions.

If they don't like it then don't give me a vote.

If there were a lot more jurors like you there would be a lot fewer innocent people in jail, there are thousands of wrongly convicted people, and a lot fewer criminals on the street.

Jury nullification is one of the last remaining areas where individuals have complete sovereignty of action to do the right thing, rather than the sheeple thing.

I once kept a guy out of jail that the prosecuter and cops were transparently trying to railroad, and once I proved this to the jury pool there was only one other person who refused to vote for conviction. I told that thing prosecutor why afterwards. One of my finer moments on earth.

[ScottT]

Guys, this will be my last post on this forum. And I won't be back to look at any responses.

But be real sure what you are wanting with this jury nullification issue. It works both ways. I have seen juries become inflamed by something and they can also disregard the law to the detriment of the accused and hate him enough to try to punish him in any way possible.

If you want juries who ignore the law, then you may as well not have any law. Juries are the fact finders in a case. Those facts, in a criminal case, must be proved by the state beyond that jury's reasonable doubts.

The Legislature is supposed to make the law. If you have juries deciding what the law should be, you may get a result that is not prudent.

Best regards,

Scott

[Hobie]

I was in a jury pool not too long ago and had to listen to the judge tell us we must apply the law as written, not to let our point of view cloud our decision.

I thought about it and decided that it would be a mistake to be so objective that I'm just a rubber stamp for the judge or lawyers. If I think the letter of the law is an injustice, I'd ignore it, regardless of instructions.

If they don't like it then don't give me a vote.

That is pretty much my view.

[El Chivo]

I think it comes down to interpretation. "The Law" can't cover all cases and what we need is for it to be applied with intelligence. Citizens having control over what happens is a good thing, otherwise we'd be living in a police state.

Of course, you have prejudiced juries, ignorant juries, impatient juries, etc. Just ask Ron Goldman's father, ask Bonnie Lee Blakely's family.

Juries that can't think and judge independently might as well not be there. And having a jury trial is one of the things that separates us from totalitarian states.

One of my favorite movies is "12 Angry Men".

Leave everything in the hands of the police and judges? Scary thought.

[Charles]

What value does an oath have to those who favor jury nullification? When the Jury is inpaneled, they raise their hands and swear they will follow the law and the instructions given them by the judge.

Do we take oaths lightly? Can our word be broken so easy?

Scott T is 100% correct, our whole legal system will break down where juries who are finders of fact take on themselves the role of making the law, and applying the law. The notion flies in the face of our Constitution, and the entire 200 plus years of law and legal tradition.

You boys throw a wall eyed fit when activist judges decide to make the law and not follow the law, but you think jury nullification is OK. Why is it OK for a jury to ignore the law, but wrong for a judge to ignore the law?Jeeze boys, get a grip!!

Jury nullification is nothing more than mob rule, by a mob of 12.

[new pig hunter]

I've heard it said that here in the Great And Glorious PRK even mentioning "jury nullification" could get you bounced direct from jury box to cell block residence.

"They" don't like us here in the PRK to think. Thinking is dangerous and un-Constitutional (it is in the Constitution somewhere, according to many PRK lawyers). Opinions & Judgment of we the sheeple are not to be trusted, hence the judge tells us what to think and how to deliberate and therefore how reach the good and proper verdict.

Cheers,

Carl

p.s. "Following the rules is for those who can't think." -- old Army maxim

p.p.s. heaven forbid a judge ever be biased or opinionated. Such certainly could never ever happen in the Great and Glorious PRK, land of all perfect knowledge and civil certitude.

[Leverdude]

Politicians swear oaths to protect & honor the constitution & then vote in laws that violate it every day & thats acceptable.

Other people swear to fight for justice & the protection of the people but violate that by enforcing unjust laws, but thats fine.

Still more swear to represent the people & council them fairly to insure that their rights are observed & they violate the oath at will. No sweat

All three for self serving purposes directly opposed to the reason they took the oath in the first place. But of course that is okay.

Yet civilians are at fault for violating an oath in order to insure that justice, as they see it, is served?

Before you take people who are willing to do the right thing to task for violating an oath make sure your working towards impeachment of every elected official that votes for unconstitutional laws.

Make sure your working towards prosecution of LEO that are doing things they swore to protect against, such as the stealing in N.O. post Katrina.

Its funny how everyone cries wolf when the people, the common man, violates some oath or other but the same people refuse to utter a word when its authority that is overstepping its bounds that they swear to abide by.

Before I ever swore to anything else I swore alegiance to the Flag of the United States & the Republic for which it stands. If any oath I take after that requires I violate the principals of that republic I will not abide by it.

Freedom, Liberty & Justice for all are something only thinking humans can provide. If a jury need not think, but only act as machines then their is no need for them. The reason for a right to a jury of your peers is simply to protect those among us from the civil servants that violate their oaths & place the common mans liberty in jeopardy.

[piller]

Having read the U.S. Constitution completely through about 10 times now, I find nothing that would prohibit We The People from deliberating and comparing a law with what is in the Constitution. If a law violates our Constitutional rights, then within the legal system is the best place to change that law. Does that not fit the concept of Jury Nullification? This concept, like almost any other, can be carried to ridiculous extremes. We need to perhaps keep this idea as a useful tool to be used when carefully considered.

[Old Ironsights]

You would think that if Jury Nullification were so contrary to the Constitution, the Framers would have mentioned it... especially after the Zenger Trial figured so heavily in the early Pamphleteering Stage of the Revolution.

I take my Oaths seriously. The FIRST Oath I ever took was to "Protect and Defend The Constitution from all enemies, bith Foreign and Domestic".

Nothing in the Juror's Oath nullifies the First oath, and, in fact, the Juror's Oath is nullified by my Oath of Enlistment when it implies I MUST disregard the Constitution and convict somone of an Unconstitutional Abridgement of Rights.

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. â€

[piller]

OI, I agree with you completely.

[Old Ironsights]

If you look at History, regardless of your current take on Jury Nullification, you can't help but notice that the creation of this COuntry and the Constitution would have been quite impossible without Jury Nullification leading the way.

[mohavesam]

I was called to jury duty a couple years back. With about 40 Cititzens left in the selection pool for a high-profile violent crime case involving (among other charges) illegal concealed carry of a firearm, the defense picked a woman who was then interviewed by the judge briefly.

The woman stated she had no prejudice in the case but had one quaetion for THE COURT. She asked whether the COURT had any prejudice regarding Jury Nullfication regarding the laws the charges were based on.

The judge, with no hesitation, IMMEDIATELY excused the entire pool of juror candidates from the room and dismissed our obligation for jury duty. IIR he also excused the jurors already selected by both counsels, who were in the room.

When several of us 'potential jurors" congregated at the elevator to grumble about the question and the judge's actions, we were escorted all the way out of the building by court Deputys.

So much for Jury Nullification in Jackson County, MI.

[Charles]

Just one word before I take my leave of this thread, as I find it most distateful and distressing.

To those who feel that breaking the Jury Oath is just fine based on your supposed understading of others you dislike breaking their various oaths.. That thinking is childish. It is like Little Jonnie doing something bad and justifying it by saying Sammy and Billie had done the same things.

Using the bad behaviour of others to excuse your own bad behaviour just won't fly. I am surprise that some of you would try to do this.

Pillar... In your multiple reading of the Constituion did you find anything that would prohibit you from killing your wife or having sex with your minor children? How about bank robbing or engaging in human sacrifice.

In case you have not noticed the Constitution is a document that sets out the form of goverments and the limitations on goverments. It in not a text book on what can and cannot be done in every regard. It does set up the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of Goverment. It does not vest the individual citizen with the right to make law, apply law and whatever they feel like doing. Folks who say that Jury nullification is just "peachy keen" with the Constition just have no basic understanding of either the Constituion or the how this great country is designed to work.

Anyway..have fun with jury nullification, I has said all on the subject that might be constructive. To say anything else is just making heat but not light. WE will just have to agree to disagree.

[mohavesam]

Cheese-n-rice there Charles, you sound upset - at what? I only read one post awhile back from you and no one actually disagreed with you?

I see the issue as one of, sadly, an anomaly of our judicial system. Contributing causes are those (including myself) whose knowledge of how "it is supposed to work" is based mostly on retained university course material some two-three decades ago, and some free internet opinion. I read this discussion as a particularly civil one on the subject matter, considering most folk believe what they think they believe in, and for the most part are content with it.

"Breaking the Jury Oath"? Let us not forget that the Judicial system gets 100% of it's authority from the people, by the people. Pray that stays the rule for our Nation and most importantly, the Nation we leave to our children.

[Old Time Hunter]

Could someone tell me why this thread has evoked such emotion? It seems to really provoke the passions of some.

As far as decisions of a jury, my belief has always held that irrelevant to what ever the protocol of authority, the juries decision is paramount. Supposedly the jury is the great equalizer and the heartbeat of the society, therefore if the mores of society has changed to make a "law" irrelevant, the jury can override the "law" since they are the deciders. No where could I find that there is a "law" that is written that says that the jury is "only" the arbitrator of facts as presented, that is why they can ask for more material in deliberation or even review. If they feel that a "fact" or "circumstance" bears more weight in their decision, can they not base their decision irrelevant to the court?

On one side it would appear to lead to anarchy, but if you go the other way it presents an rigid, authoritarian, totalitarian structure where the freedom or wishes of the "people" are secondary to the "rules". Really makes me think

[Kismet]

If there were a lot more jurors like you there would be a lot fewer innocent people in jail, there are thousands of wrongly convicted people, and a lot fewer criminals on the street.

snip

I once kept a guy out of jail that the prosecuter and cops were transparently trying to railroad, and once I proved this to the jury pool there was only one other person who refused to vote for conviction. I told that thing prosecutor why afterwards. One of my finer moments on earth.

Just to be clear on the concept, actively engaging in jury nullification will not result in fewer innocent people convicted or fewer criminals on the streets. Jury nullification is saying that the person IS guilty of breaking the law, but you don't like the law so you are going to acquit.

As for your example, Grizz, it just sounds like you were doing your job, and doing it well. The way you posed your actions does not sound like you were disregarding the law. (I might just misunderstand what you meant.)

Having read the U.S. Constitution completely through about 10 times now, I find nothing that would prohibit We The People from deliberating and comparing a law with what is in the Constitution. If a law violates our Constitutional rights, then within the legal system is the best place to change that law. Does that not fit the concept of Jury Nullification? This concept, like almost any other, can be carried to ridiculous extremes. We need to perhaps keep this idea as a useful tool to be used when carefully considered.

Well, this will get us heading back down the path of the closed thread and I had intended to avoid that part of the discussion with my tangent. (Though I personally find it the interesting part!)

I will at least comment that Griff had it 100% right. I'm sorry to tell you, but you do not get to decide what is and is not constitutional. In fact, that is called ANARCHY. While many laws could be written clearer, anything we write down REQUIRES interpretation. So, if anyone can interpret the words of the Constitution however they choose, it means nothing. If we the people don't like how a portion of the Constitution is interpreted by those ultimately charged with interpreting it, there is a well established way of amending the Constitution. (As but one example, if we the people don't like the forthcoming decision in Heller, we can change the 2A to read "Every human being has a right to as many weapons of any kind that they want and no government interest will ever be sufficient to limit that right in any way.")

Michael in NH

[Hobie]

Watch it gentlemen, this one is close to being locked. Discuss the subject and not the presenters of the argument.

[Old Time Hunter]

Hobie, please explain to me where or why this thread might be locked down. I personally do not see any attacks, but then again I have pretty thick skin in real life so any personal attacks or insults I just consider the source and move on. But like I said, didn't see any here. Some opposing underlying philosophical differences, but no totally diameterical opposition.

So, what does constitute the parameters for "locking down" a thread?

[BAGTIC]

I ahve been on seven juries in my life. Among them I hung one, I was the only vote out of six for guilty. The DA dropped the case.

The other case was for possession of marijuana and LSD. The first vote was 11-1 for conviction. After 3 days the vote reversed to 12-0 for acquital Two of the jurors including the foreman approached me after the trial and thanked me for providing a new perspective that they had missed.

Whatever you do it is your vote and your decision. Stand your ground for what you think is right. I do recommend that you not bring up the matter of jury nullification as in some jurisdictions it is officially illegal and at the least it could get you dismissed from the case so that your perspective would be lost.

Juries are under no obligation to come to an agreement. 'Split' is just as valid a jury verdict as are guilty or innocent. A 'hung jury' is NOT a failure of the system. Also jurors are not there as avenging angels to punish people. That is why we have cops, lawyers, and judges.

Trial juries were never intended to be prosecutorial. They were created to protect defendants from abuses by the authorities. They are Our, The People's, last line of defense against ambitious overzealous functionaries.

[Leverdude]

I dont see any reason to challenge Hobies statement.
The thread hasn't yet gone too far but thers indications it might so he said what he said.

I personally dont equate a jurrors oath in any way with the oaths taken by politicians & others that actively seek to represent or otherwise provide services to the people. Be it in a LE, military, judicial or political manner.
An oath taken by them should be a very serious & legally binding thing. Not something that, as it is every day, can be simply forgotten about at the discretion of the person in question. They are civil servants paid by the people & sworn, theoretically, to abide by the limits those people have set. Its a real & true crime when they violate that oath.

Jurrors however are the people. They are not paid civil servants. Sure you get a few bucks but you dont get near the prevailing wages of court profesionals, politicians, or LEO. You do not become an employee of the people but rather you become honest to God representatives of them, not for monetary or political gain, but in order to see justice done. To my way of thinking voteing the way you feel is right is not a violation of your oath. Voting to convict a man you think has done nothing wrong however is.

I never volunteered for a jury or actively sought such employment. When I served on a jury the oath I took I took very seriously but the laws I swore to abide & pass judgement based on are not all equal. Just as lawyers, cops, judges & politicians are allowed profesional discretion in order to be reasonable in the execution of their duties a jurror IMO should do the same.
They should weigh the case & evidence as best they can based not only on the law that was broken but on what really happened & the aplication of a given law in that one instance. Its also incumbent on a person entrusted with the life & future of another to make sure the charges levied arent in conflict with the persons rights as an American citizen or a human being.

If I served on a jury for instance in DC where a man was being charged with felony posession of a handgun & had commited no real crime I couldn't convict him because I know that law is unjust & convicting him would be violating his rights as an American & as a human being.

If however he was charged with felony posession of a handgun because he used it to rob or kill someone I might be convinced to vote differently, as long as the major offense was the primary charge.

This is not mob rule or anarchy. Often these laws are the result of mob rule. Mob rule gives us these right violating laws. By definition when a majority can legislate away the rights of others you have mob rule.
Rights are innumerated in the constitution to limit legislation & prevent mob rule. When those limits are ignored an oath much more binding that a jurrors has been violated & good people should resist the implimentation of such unjust laws any way they can. The right to a jury trial is a mans last & final defense against injustice disguised as law.

In the US if a law is unjust its invalid & everyone involved with it is violating an oath. Unless a jury aquits or nullifys. In such a case they would be the only ones not in violation of their oath.

[Hobie]

Hobie, please explain to me where or why this thread might be locked down. I personally do not see any attacks, but then again I have pretty thick skin in real life so any personal attacks or insults I just consider the source and move on. But like I said, didn't see any here. Some opposing underlying philosophical differences, but no totally diameterical opposition.

So, what does constitute the parameters for "locking down" a thread?

Personal attacks are not permitted i.e. referring to another poster rather than to the argument. I won't permit it any more. IOW, don't call the arguer or argument silly, refute the content. If you think x=y and I don't I should point how x=z and z≠y but don't waste our time with "your a silly fool" or some such. Yes, I'm going to be really "sensitive" for a time. Private ownership has a lot to do with it.

[Old Ironsights]

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794)

What happened that what was once considered a vital part of the American System has become anathema to so many - particularly those who stand to lose Power by its' use?

Sigh. This is what happens when a Society worries more about malum prohibitum than malum in se...

As for the Oath: Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments.

[new pig hunter]

mohavesam,

Your example above is the perfect example re. jury nullification, you have up close & personal seen it's power in action. From your example I "see" that there is an underlying concept which absolutely terrorized that particular judge.

Therefore, a fundamental and logical question to ask is: what is it about the concept of jury nullification that the American judicial system fears/despises/does not like/does not approve ??

Cheers,

Carl

[BHB]

You're under the assumption that the courts have ANY validity......they don't!!

Law means nothing to the judges or to the lawyers........it's all a "show" so us peasants think that law means something..........yes, I'm a cynic.

[Jeeps]

More power to the people? Less for legislators?

I'm all for it.

Beware those who would lay total power in the lap of government.

EDIT: Bottom line is laws are made to regulate behavior, which is definitely
needed in some circumstances. If the people believe the law is being used
wrongfully, then they should be able to nullify it use.

It is against the law to take a life, if you take a life of a lawbreaker to save
a life from his evil deeds did you just break the law?

Laws serve a purpose, when they are not serving the purpose to which they
were made a group of 12 grown people should be able to recognize this and
do what is right.

Our system is far from perfect, I think we can all agree with that. It is also
one of the BEST systems on earth. Sometimes it needs to be tweaked
a bit, hence we make new laws or take others off the books.

SOMETIMES it needs to be done with haste so a fellow citizen does not suffer
consequences we did not intend for them. Jury nullification allows this.

It may not be perfect, but try to point to something that is.

If it errs on the side of protecting the people then I am staunchly "all for it".

[Old Ironsights]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why somthing that was documented as being so important to the founding of our system is now either impertenant or seditious...

[El Chivo]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why somthing that was documented as being so important to the founding of our system is now either impertenant or seditious...

OI, from the point of view of a judge or lawyer or LEO, an independent, thinking jury limits their control. A passive, compliant jury increases their control.

[piller]

Gents, it seems we may be letting assumptions about others prevent thoughtful and meaningful dialogue.

Hobie, it appears you were right.

[Old Savage]

It should be becoming clear in this and the three locked threads that everyone has a right to their own opinion and no one has a right to try to take that away (except for misbehavior as defined by the moderators) and attempts to do so go awry and generate the misbehavior that bring the moderators into it.

[Old Ironsights]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why somthing that was documented as being so important to the founding of our system is now either impertenant or seditious...

OI, from the point of view of a judge or lawyer or LEO, an independent, thinking jury limits their control. A passive, compliant jury increases their control.

An explanation beyond the Cynically obvious...

I want a "Strict Constructionist" explanation. One that explains how we can truly have a system of "self government" when we are being Ruled by people who don't like us to question their Rules.

[DixieBoy]

I've watched this thread as closely as I could during finals week and yesterday being Mother's Day. I think that you guys have nailed it pretty well down on the basic point - the concept of Jury Nullification reflects the best of Jeffersonian thinking about distrust of authority and the penchant of those in authority to assume more of it, and to sometimes abuse it.

I don't believe that JN is specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that the founders were not aware of it.
One of the things that gets lost in the haste and shallowness of public schooling in "government" classes (and at university levels too) is the insight to be gained by going over the ratification debates. Almost (not all) all of the fears and concerns of the anti-federalists - those who initially opposed the ratifying of the Constitution - are spelled out.

I certainly don't consider the Anti-Federalists to be anarchists or nutjobs. I think we owe them our considerable thanks for the Bill of Rights. Madison gets the credit for drafting our Bill of Rights, but let's be honest. Madison, brilliant man that he way, was also easily influenced by others, sometimes for the worse. When Jefferson was serving as America's envoy to France in the 1790's, Madison came under the strong influence of Alexander Hamilton, the number one proponent of a really powerful central government. When Jefferson returned from France he was upset about the many possibilities for federal gov't. abuse of power which were allowed in the Constitution.

Madison quickly got back in line with Jefferson when TJ was here and able to engage in prolonged discussions with Madison. History books either omit this completely or downplay it. The fact is, that Jefferson towered over Madison both physically (Jefferson used to call Madison "little Jemmy") and intellectually. There is a fascinating collection of letters from the time Madison was here and Jefferson in France, compiled by a fellow named Koch. One of the more mind boggling things you'll see in there is that Madison flat out lied to TJ during the time of the drafting of the Constitution. This is what caused TJ's disappointment upon his return.

Okay, so what's all this got to do with Nullification? Well, during John Adam's presidency and all of the extremely heated debate going on in this country over where America should place her loyalties regarding the fight between France and England going on at the time, Adams got his Federalist pals in Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. If you were foreign born and critiicized the government's positions, you could be deported. And if you were American born and criticizing the government, you could be jailed ! And people were jailed then.

With Jefferson not only back at home, but serving as Adam's Vice President, he drafted the Kentucky Resolution and Madison (now strongly influenced by Jefferson) drafted the Virginian Resolution. Both of these resolutions spelled out that individual states could, and should, disregard laws which they deemed to be "repugnant to the Constiution." These resolutions you could say are Jury Nullification writ large. (Ever wonder why Jefferson's image is found on the lowly and rarely used $ 2 bill ? He is a thorn in the side of every politician who craves for unquestioned authority over the people.)

It all comes back to the - at the time - very patriotic notion of distrust of government. And where most of us are likely to have our first, or only, exposure to government power (before the passage of the income tax) is in a courtroom.

While there still are individuals in government who honor their responsibilities, just as there are law enforcement officers who do the same, the notion that the people are the final judge of a law goes back a long way in this country. Even before Zenger, though that's the first major evidence of it.

Truthfully, I don't see what the animosity is about. The only people threatened by JN are politicians who don't wish to hear a second opinion on the laws they've passed. But come on, haven't many well intentioned laws proven to have really awful unintended consequences? And many judges are indignant at the thought of us unwashed masses having the gall to think that we have a say-so in the process beyond simply pulling a lever in a voting booth. Well, we do. Even if our schools, our politicians, and our judges don't want us to know about it. - DixieBoy

[Old Ironsights]

+1 DixieBoy

I think the animosity comes from the fact that, just as RKBA is the Litmus Test to see if a Politiian trusts his constituents, Jury Nullification is the Litmus test that lays open the soul of the Gun Owner.

Either you believe in Self Government and the Right of the People to Judge their Government/Laws or you do not... and that bit of cognitive dissonance is hard for some Gun Owners to reconcile.

To put it bluntly, without Jury Nullification, the only recourse The People have to Government is to wait until it is SO bad that there MUST be a Revolution.

Jury Nullification allows for Mini Revolutions - where The People tell the Government that certain types of Laws are Unacceptable - so that we don't have to resort to "the cartridge box" immediately after "the ballot box" fails to have any effect (look at the coming elections...)

[Grizz]

DixieBoy,

Kudos. That's one of the sweetest and most patriotic pieces I've read in a long time. I appreciate your grasp of American history and your ability to concisely communicate it. I learned something good today...

Grizz

[piller]

DixieBoy, that was well said and well thought out. It appears that I spoke a little too soon up above.

[DixieBoy]

I think that most of us are really on the same page with this one, once we stop and give it some thought. After all, isn't the Right to Keep and Bear Arms kind of a "line in the sand" for most of us? Old Ironsights nailed it there.

I drive people crazy when I talk politics with them, especially at school. I jump right into "the gun thing." The reason I do this is to save time. If a person tells me that they have all sorts of respect for ordinary peoples' rights, but they do alot of himming and hawing when it comes to guns, well then I know that they don't really mean any of that stuff about respecting peoples' rights. It's just stuff they say to make themselves feel good.

Of course, for folks like us, when we ask a person or a politician about their stance on guns we are know that we're about to get that person's real thoughts about freedom. Cuts right to the chase, doesn't it?

I continue to believe that I've found a darn good bunch here, and I hope that discussions like these will continue to be allowed. I learn alot too. - DixieBoy

[Hobie]

And I think you have made some darn good contributions to the forum! Glad to have you here DixieBoy.

[DixieBoy]

I just went back and re-read Old Ironsight's post; it got me thinking.

With the elections coming up there are those who will say that we shouldn't bother voting, the old "oh, my one vote doesn't matter" or whatever other reply works at the moment.

I admit that it can get frustrating. I have lots of beefs with GW, probably the first being the way he's allowed the border to the south to continue to disintegrate. But...we alll remember the alternative back then. I think that John Kerry would have done all he could to put us on a fast track to "licensing and registration" of firearms. Nothing he ever said dissuaded me from that belief. And "All gore" before him was cut from pretty much the same cloth.

When Old Ironsights mentioned "the cartridge box" as being the final breakdown of the situation, it brought back some old feelings. I remember telling someone back then (before election time) that I believed it was my responsibility to do all that I could - morally and legally - to see that we never saw that day arrive in America. Because for many of us, that day will be the day that we say "NO."

If we eventually see bloodshed in this country over this issue in America I have no doubt that alot of us would lose our lives. For real. And if that day ever comes I want to face my maker with a clean conscience, and be able to say that I did everything in my power to see that awful day not come to pass. Not meaning to be dramatic, but this issue is one of those that most of us hold truly dear. Think about all the folks in other countries who have surrendered this cherished right. It is guys (and gals) like us who hold the line in this country, and continue to make "gun control" an issue best avoided for politicians before election time.

May it always be so. - DixieBoy