Do You Know What [i]Jury Nullification[/i] Is? If Not, You Should!

[MikeK]

A man in Michigan, Keith Wood, has been convicted of jury tampering for passing out brochures to prospective jurors near the entrance of a courthouse. The brochures contained information explaining the constitutional right of a jury to vote as their collective conscience dictates rather than what the Law demands. This right is in obvious fact the last ditch assertion of the rights of citizens over the dominance of government.

Sadly, only a small percentage of Americans are aware of their right as a juror to vote against convicting a defendant whose action they believe to be justified. The court system does everything in its power to deprive jurors of this awareness. It has gone so far to impose laws against informing jurors of their right to nullify a guilty verdict.

At the conclusion of a criminal trial and just before the jury retires to deliberate the judge issues a "charge" to the jurors in which he sternly informs them they are obliged to vote according to to the evidence presented and what the Law demands because of that evidence. This "charge" is bullshit. Each individual juror has the right to vote according to what his/her conscience (or whatever) dictates.

Hypothetical example: Jim's fifteen year-old daughter is turned onto drugs and into prostitution by 35 year-old Joe. Jim finds about it, goes hunting for Joe, finds him and beats him to death. Jim is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, a charge which is supported by irrefutable evidence -- weapon, fingerprints, blood-stains, eye-witnesses.

The facts are clear in this case. Jim had no legal right to do what he did and a forensic psychiatrist has testified that he was perfectly sane when he took it upon himself to stalk and murder Joe. According to the Judge's "charge" to the jury -- they must find in accordance with the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is bullshit.

The fact is at this stage in the trial the Judge is circumstantially reduced to the role of referee and the jury has become the judge. It will decide what happens to Jim. And if the jurors all decide that Jim does not deserve to be punished for ridding the world of a serpent like Joe and their verdict is, Not Guilty, that's the end of it. Jim will walk free -- and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's over. This is called Jury Nullification and it is perfectly legal.

So if you were a juror in Jim's trial, what would your verdict be?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, that was jury tampering.

Yes, everyone should now what is jury tampering.

The tactic can be used for good and bad, and it is outside of the judge and lawyers if done smoothly.

 

[bodecea]

This is a thread in favor of vigilantism?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a thread in favor of vigilantism?

This is a thread in local self determinism. Costanza always hated that argument. So did Jillian.

 

[MikeK]

Yup, that was jury tampering.

Do you believe that informing prospective jurors of a critically important constitutional right is "tampering?"

Informing jurors of their rights is not tampering. But attempting to obscure awareness of an important right, which is what judges do during their "charge" to a jury, clearly and absolutely is deliberate and malicious tampering and it goes on all the time.

 

[MikeK]

This is a thread in favor of vigilantism?

How do the two things compare?

Vigilantism abjures the Law, while Jury Nullification is the ultimate and absolute expression of the Common Law as it was passed down to us from the Magna Carta. It is the final word. It is the citizen jury saying to the Law, No! You may not punish this citizen!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do You Know What Jury Nullification Is?

Yes, I do know what it is. I see it as one of the assortment of checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Jury nullification can also be used to convict

 

[JakeStarkey]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

 

[MikeK]

Jury nullification can also be used to convict

It can be attempted but a Guilty verdict can be appealed. A Not Guilty verdict is final. Any attempt to re-try the acquitted is Double Jeopardy and is null and void.

 

[DarkFury]

I would say Jim was not guilty.

 

[MikeK]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

The fellow in Michigan was handing out informational brochures to prospective jurors on a public street as they were approaching the entrance to a courthouse. The brochures made no reference to anything but the mechanics of Jury Nullification. They had nothing to to with any specific trial.

 

[MikeK]

I would say Jim was not guilty.

So would I.

 

[MikeK]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

Prospective jurors are not jurors until they are sworn. They are just ordinary people.

 

[imawhosure]

A man in Michigan, Keith Wood, has been convicted of jury tampering for passing out brochures to prospective jurors near the entrance of a courthouse. The brochures contained information explaining the constitutional right of a jury to vote as their collective conscience dictates rather than what the Law demands. This right is in obvious fact the last ditch assertion of the rights of citizens over the dominance of government.

Sadly, only a small percentage of Americans are aware of their right as a juror to vote against convicting a defendant whose action they believe to be justified. The court system does everything in its power to deprive jurors of this awareness. It has gone so far to impose laws against informing jurors of their right to nullify a guilty verdict.

At the conclusion of a criminal trial and just before the jury retires to deliberate the judge issues a "charge" to the jurors in which he sternly informs them they are obliged to vote according to to the evidence presented and what the Law demands because of that evidence. This "charge" is bullshit. Each individual juror has the right to vote according to what his/her conscience (or whatever) dictates.

Hypothetical example: Jim's fifteen year-old daughter is turned onto drugs and into prostitution by 35 year-old Joe. Jim finds about it, goes hunting for Joe, finds him and beats him to death. Jim is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, a charge which is supported by irrefutable evidence -- weapon, fingerprints, blood-stains, eye-witnesses.

The facts are clear in this case. Jim had no legal right to do what he did and a forensic psychiatrist has testified that he was perfectly sane when he took it upon himself to stalk and murder Joe. According to the Judge's "charge" to the jury -- they must find in accordance with the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is bullshit.

The fact is at this stage in the trial the Judge is circumstantially reduced to the role of referee and the jury has become the judge. It will decide what happens to Jim. And if the jurors all decide that Jim does not deserve to be punished for ridding the world of a serpent like Joe and their verdict is, Not Guilty, that's the end of it. Jim will walk free -- and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's over. This is called Jury Nullification and it is perfectly legal.

So if you were a juror in Jim's trial, what would your verdict be?

Actually, any prosecutor that brought the case you are describing should be drummed out of his government position.

I never believed in jury nullification, until I seen the current state of this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

The fellow in Michigan was handing out informational brochures to prospective jurors on a public street as they were approaching the entrance to a courthouse. The brochures made no reference to anything but the mechanics of Jury Nullification. They had nothing to to with any specific trial.

Well, try that with a judge, and tell us how that goes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

Prospective jurors are not jurors until they are sworn. They are just ordinary people.

They have been notified by the court to appear, so your defense of civilian status is not going to work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure the Alt Right will try to use the tactic in getting their folks off.

Perhaps the hard left will do it as well.

A judge who catches anyone trying to influence jurors, a pool of prospective jurors, or tampering with citizens who have ordered to appear should be immediately slapped with contempt of court, be made to do six months, and if they trial goes longer, simply renew the contempt order.

I am in favor of jury nullification, but do it smartly.

 

[IsaacNewton]

There are hundreds of people in prisons because police and prosecutors decided 'they were the law and knew best'.

You can't leave these decisions to human beings. It has to be by evidence, not a gut feeling because gut feelings are often wrong.

 

[2aguy]

The economist Walter Williams was kicked off of jury duty because he informed the judge during jury selection that the verdict was the juries job.....and that once they were released to deliberate, they, not the judges orders were in charge.......the judge booted him....