Anyone ever involved in jury duty needs to read this: Jury Nullification!

[mikeofaustin]

Today, I finally found something that I feel might be the most held secret, that gives citizens back their rights. If you are ever in a jury trial, understand this held secret. It's perfectly legal and just.

If you can remember the recent case where a person grew pot in his basement simply for his terminal wife, he got 60 days in jail. This was a victimless crime. Here is the article. http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=14585545

Juries have a right to submit a non-guilty verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. This is called Jury Nullification.

Nowadays, this is supposed to be a huge secret Defense attorneys are not even allowed to inform a jury that this possibility exists. Many jury instructions will hide this fact, suggesting that juries are required to vote guilty if the prosecutor's burden has been met.

The legal system goes to great lengths to hide this option from juries.

If you are a jury member for an individual that has been charged with a victimless crime, such as non-violent drug possession, you can simply refuse to vote guilty despite all evidence of guilt if you feel it would be unjust to apply the law. If you plan on doing this, don't mention it during jury selection or the DA will strike you from the jury.
Also, a judge can overturn a guilty verdict, but he CANNOT overturn a non-guilty verdict delivered by a jury (unless he has grounds to declare a mistrial).

I did not know this. There has been many "crimes" that are victimless. It's up to us to spread this wealth of information. Please, send this to everyone you know. You never know when your friends, or even you, might be put up there and charged with an unjust law.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Felinepeachy]

Yes! Great post Mike.

 

[jeff of pa]

Yes this is why there are Juries in the first Place.

In a Jury trial, the Judge is
pretty much only a referee

 

[Red James Cash]

Excellent post mike

 

[RGINN]

Juries have been findin people who are obviously guilty by the evidence 'not guilty' for years. Sometimes, this is a good thing. Perhaps the accused violated the letter of the law, but not the intent. Personally I do not care for juries. They watch too much CSI and TV like that. If I ever find myself in that situation, I'll wave the crap shoot of a jury and by tried by the judge.

 

[Felinepeachy]

Here's some interesting info about jury nullification.


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 they 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 free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned 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.

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

Thank you for the enlightening information! Got it saved to my favorites.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Ray S ECenFL]

Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting fact. Will definately share that with others.

Ray S ECenFL

 

[fuceye]

sounds like a dozen hostile Sapiens to me....