Jury Nullification: Seminar/Lecture Guide, How to Save our Youngest Adult Generation

[The2ndAmendment]

Attached to this thread is lecture guide on Jury Nullification. The right of jury nullification has existed since the signing of the Magna Carta, in fact, juries themselves were introduced to ensure that the King couldn't rig trials in his favor.

Today, just like in our ancient past, juries are the final check on government power and tyranny. Use this guide to educate others in public, a church, community center, library, etc.

We can use Jury Nullification to end the "War on Drugs" and reverse other unconstitutional, unjust or unfair laws.

Learn about our most sacred constitution right!

 

[editec]

Judges frequent admonish juries that they they do NOT have the right to arrive at a decision based on their own personal beliefs about the law.

REAL citizens, citizens with the gravitas to think for themselves are rare.

Damn it!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I've had many people challenge the jury's ability to rule against the judge, so I asked them:

"If the jury shall be forced to rule according to the judge, then why have a jury at all? For what reason do you think our Founding Fathers demanded that all criminal trials be decided by a jury instead of judge?"

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Judges get to jabbermouth it up pretty good. Instructions are mostly summary exercises in asscovering by hooked up establishment retainers unable to make it in the private sector. The overwhelming majority of judges in the US focus on not making a reversible err or omission in their instructions to juries.

The bottom line is there is no legal penalty for a juror or an entire jury that otherwise behaves within the law but ignores a judge's instructions on how to decide a case. The funniest new post-trial excesses (abscesses?) by jokes in black robes in recent years are prohibitions against jurors selling their stories. If anyone paid attention to it, that would be news.

It'd be great to see some heavy hitter putting some money into instructing the public about the rights of individual jurors and juries as a body to reject the law and decide cases as they see fit.

Possible problem: as the scum of the earth gain power, they are moving to less than unanimous decisions in criminal trials.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Imagine if they ever read this from President Andrew Jackson:

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You mean if I'm on a Jury and the Defendant is obviously guilty, but I don't like the Law, I can find him Innocent? Really?

So if a Defendant is on Trial for let's say, having an unregistered Weapon or 3 lbs of Marijuana, I can find him Innocent just because I don't like the Law?

Good thing most Americans don't know this!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can only find "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

Yes, pretty much so. If you find an accused "not guilty", the prosecution can look for new charges or perhaps the feds can charge the individual.

If you decided do to it the next time you are called to jury duty, make sure you tell no one at all of your intentions, before and during and after.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You mean if I'm on a Jury and the Defendant is obviously guilty, but I don't like the Law, I can find him Innocent? Really?

So if a Defendant is on Trial for let's say, having an unregistered Weapon or 3 lbs of Marijuana, I can find him Innocent just because I don't like the Law?

Good thing most Americans don't know this!

Thank about it logically (even though I know the question is rhetorical):

If the Founding Fathers intended for the Jury to be coerced into the voting in favor of the State, then why did they even include the Jury process? Why not just have the Judge himself decide your fate?

Thomas Jefferson answers this question directly:

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.