Juries

[indago]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?

[Max R.]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?The prosecution may have something to say about that. I'm not sure the jury has the acumen or authority to make that declaration. All that is sufficient is "not guilty".

If you think that means the jury can set a legal precedent, I doubt it...but I'm not a lawyer so that's just a WAG.

[revelarts]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?


just one word.

AMEN

[revelarts]

- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Oliver Wendel Holmes, Horning v DC 254 US 35,138 (1920)
"The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

[fj1200]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?

I have a feeling that is dependent on state law. I recall Neal Boortz making the statement that he would refuse to convict a drug case on that reasoning and he said it was legal option in the State of Georgia.

[jimnyc]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?

Liking or disliking their actions aside, the don't have the ability or right to determine what is or is not constitutional. Their job is to make a decision based on the facts presented by both sides, and based on the judges directions. In fact, they should ONLY be deciding based on the facts presented.

They likely wouldn't even be permitted to make such a statement. I don't know how the judge would handle such a situation. They would probably only succeed in having the judge declare a mistrial. Simply put, juries don't get to create or strike down the laws that defendants are charged with breaking.

[Voted4Reagan]

The prosecution may have something to say about that. I'm not sure the jury has the acumen or authority to make that declaration. All that is sufficient is "not guilty".

If you think that means the jury can set a legal precedent, I doubt it...but I'm not a lawyer so that's just a WAG.


Agreed. The Jury can't rule on the Constitutionality of the case. Only how the case applies to the law(s) as charged by the Judge.

[fj1200]

Liking or disliking their actions aside, the don't have the ability or right to determine what is or is not constitutional. Their job is to make a decision based on the facts presented by both sides, and based on the judges directions. In fact, they should ONLY be deciding based on the facts presented.

They likely wouldn't even be permitted to make such a statement. I don't know how the judge would handle such a situation. They would probably only succeed in having the judge declare a mistrial. Simply put, juries don't get to create or strike down the laws that defendants are charged with breaking.


Agreed. The Jury can't rule on the Constitutionality of the case. Only how the case applies to the law(s) as charged by the Judge.

Umm...


Jury nullification of law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States) in the United States (the term "jury nullification of law" is often shortened to "jury nullification," for purposes of brevity, even though it is the law being nullified and not the jury or its verdict) has its origins in colonial British America. Similar to British law, in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) jury nullification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1) The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_verdict) in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution)’s Double Jeopardy Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause), which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2) and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3)


The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing theright of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.”

Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that theCourt may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Juryof all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount incontroversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

Art. 1, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Oregon’s Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16, states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shallnot be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. In all criminal cases whatever, thejury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law,and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Art. 1, Sec. 1 of Georgia’s Constitution says:
The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without theverdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demandedin writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by animpartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.These constitutional jury nullification provisions endure despite decades of hostile judicialinterpretation.
http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

[jimnyc]

Umm...




http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

Ummm... little more extended than that. And in practice, not as easy or as much...

Jury nullification began in the United States in 1670 when Quakers were acquitted by a jury of violating a law which only permitted religious assemblies under the Church of England.[4] In 1735 a journalist was acquitted by a jury who nullified a law making it a crime to criticize public officials.[4] Later, colonial juries nullified the Navigation Acts which would have forced all trade with the colonies to pass through England for taxation.[4]

Just prior to the Civil War northern juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act because jurors felt the laws to be unjust. In 1851, 24 people were indicted for helping a fugitive escape from a jail in Syracuse, New York. The first four trials of the group resulted in three acquittals and one conviction, and the government dropped the remaining charges. Likewise, after a crowd broke into a Boston courtroom and rescued Anthony Burns, a slave, the grand jury indicted three of those involved, but after an acquittal and several hung juries, the government dropped the charges.[5]

During the 19th and 20th centuries, especially in the civil rights movement era, all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks; however, the problem according to some scholars was: "...not in jury nullification, but in jury selection. The jury was not representative of the community..."[6][7] During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[8] possibly as often as 60% of the time because of disagreements with the justice of the law.[9] This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.[citation needed]

Kalven's and Zeisel's study of the American jury found that juries acquitted when judges would have convicted in only nineteen percent of cases, and of these, only twenty-one percent of the acquittals were attributable to jury nullification.[10] Jury nullification sometimes takes the form of a jury convicting the defendant of lesser charges than what the prosecutor sought.[11]

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that are considered by many to be unjust either in principle or because they disproportionately affect members of certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification,[9] and a recent rise in hung juries (from an average of 5% to nearly 20% in recent years) is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves (though other reasons such as the CSI effect may also be involved).[12]

In criminal cases, jury nullification arguments sometimes focus on the precise language of the jury instruction on the burden of proof. 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.[citation needed] Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[citation needed] The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.[citation needed]

During the Vietnam War era, many protestors, including Benjamin Spock, sought jury nullification.[13] Spock was convicted of conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet registrants to avoid the draft, after the judge instructed the jury to apply the law as he laid it down.[14] However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit overturned the conviction because the judge had committed prejudicial error in putting to the jury ten special yes-or-no questions.[15] Eight defendants from Oakland, California were tried in 1969 for conspiracy to disrupt a draft induction center, and the jury acquitted after being told by the judge that it could acquit if it felt the defendants' actions were protected by the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Likewise, in a case involving ten Seattle protestors accused of blocking a munitions train carrying bombs destined for Vietnam, the jury acquitted after the judge allowed the defendants to talk about their motives and permitted the defense to ask the jurors to invoke their consciences and object to the war by acquitting.[5]

-------

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification.[citation needed] While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use and to erode earlier precedent.[citation needed] In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) Chief Justice John Jay charged the jury for the unanimous court, "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

Many of the first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement that the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.

In both cases, in the DC Circuit, the same judge, William Cranch, rendered the opinions, creating precedents that have never been overturned.[21][22]

The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn[23] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law.

The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S.,[24] written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[25]

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the power of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[26]

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty,[27] the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. However, in Dougherty the then-chief judge David L. Bazelon authored a dissenting in part opinion, arguing that the jury should be instructed about their power to render the verdict according to their conscience if the law was unjust. He wrote that refusal to allow the jury to be instructed constitutes a "deliberate lack of candor". It has been argued that the denial of jury nullification requests negates much of the point of self-representation.[28]

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske,[29] the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the majority and the dissent agreed that the trial judge's instruction was untrue, but the majority held that this false representation was not a reversible error.

In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas,[30] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). The Second Circuit also stated, however, that the court must not remove a juror for an alleged refusal to follow the law as instructed unless the record leaves no doubt that the juror was in fact engaged in deliberate misconduct—that he was not simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants.

We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.

In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law.[31] People v. Williams, 25 Cal.4th 441, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209. However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict.

The Supreme Court of the United States has not recently confronted the issue directly.

Circa 1996, Laura Kriho was the sole juror holdout in a drug possession trial, one eventually declared a mistrial. Kriho was found in contempt of court and charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for learning from the Internet that the defendant could face a four- to twelve-year prison term if convicted, a fact that had not been disclosed to the jury by the court.[32] Additionally, while not asked about her opinions about the fairness of the drug laws or her own prior legal history, she was prosecuted for obstruction of justice for failing to volunteer this information on her own.[33] The trial court found "that Kriho had intended to obstruct the judicial process and that her actions had prevented the seating of a fair and impartial jury",[34] but after four years of legal battles the charges were eventually dropped after a district court ruled that her statements during secret jury deliberations could not be used against her.[35] It has been argued that improved protection of the holdout juror is a necessary and critical component to the preservation of a defendant's right to a fair trial.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

[fj1200]

Ummm... little more extended than that. And in practice, not as easy or as much...

Of course but you can't dismiss it so regularly when it's possible and Constitutionally guaranteed in four states.

[jimnyc]

Of course but you can't dismiss it so regularly when it's possible and Constitutionally guaranteed in four states.

They can ignore law, they cannot unilaterally determine/change law. If they IGNORE the law, for example, on a drug possession charge. It's not like suddenly that particular law on possession is struck from the law. They simply ignored the law.

[fj1200]

They can ignore law, they cannot unilaterally determine/change law. If they IGNORE the law, for example, on a drug possession charge. It's not like suddenly that particular law on possession is struck from the law. They simply ignored the law.

Nobody made that suggestion.

[aboutime]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?


The sitting judge in the TRIAL...is the One, and Only member of the court who can determine WHAT IS, or ISN'T constitutional. So, the final decision rests with the Judge. Otherwise. It is a MISS-TRIAL.

[jimnyc]

Nobody made that suggestion.

It would appear I misspoke, my apologies. I wasn't aware of those states and wasn't quite as knowledgeable about jury nullification. But AT makes a good point, that judges can simply overrule at their discretion (no expert there either). IMO, I don't think it's a good idea to allow people to ignore the law anyway, as we have a process to have things changed that we don't like. Potentially, according to what I read, a murderer could be released simply based on how the jury "feels" about things, and the state wouldn't be able to have a second bite of the apple, and nothing can be done to the juries of course. I don't know specifically what authority judges have in overruling verdicts in such cases, but if I were the judge, a more realistic verdict would be set forth.

[revelarts]

if the lower courts would follow the constitution and not bit by bit break off pieces and the natural and traditional understanding. It wouldn't be question. But like spying on homes without warrant, gun confiscation, needing a permit to "protest". so to some would now argue that it IS constitutional that judges instead of the duly appointed Juries have authority over court decisions.

However Juries still can ignore judges instructions so far as the limits of the law are concerned. And take it to the constitutional limit if they decide to fight for the rights granted us. And that the supreme court has ruled in favor of.
. - Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

It's the way the system was designed. So that the courts are ultimately in the hands of the people. Not appointed or elected Judges. Or just moved through an inhuman system of "laws" that are to be followed blindly by rote.
- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

Similar to the 2nd amendment being a right finally so that the people have weapons to correct overbearing gov't.
JURIES are there before it comes to arms. The juries are a last PEACEFUL line of defense against unconstitutional laws create by legislatures or the executive, against corrupt courts or judges and government attempts to suppress opposition.

One reason we have a jury system is so that the gov't doesn't have the right to make the laws then execute the law without final public input. Juries aren't there just to "follow the law" or do what the Judge says blindly.

Today with the law making bodies SO far removed from the people and more laws on the books than anyone can't honestly obey, and LEOs tasked to enforce the all of the law. And Judges on the clock and prosecutors paid by the state trying to make a reputation.
One of the people's last options against a kafkaesque state machine running on automatic is a FREE jury.

[fj1200]

The sitting judge in the TRIAL...is the One, and Only member of the court who can determine WHAT IS, or ISN'T constitutional. So, the final decision rests with the Judge. Otherwise. It is a MISS-TRIAL.

He doesn't appear to be correct. In a trial I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge making a decision regarding the Constitutionality of the law in question.


It would appear I misspoke, my apologies. I wasn't aware of those states and wasn't quite as knowledgeable about jury nullification. But AT makes a good point, that judges can simply overrule at their discretion (no expert there either). IMO, I don't think it's a good idea to allow people to ignore the law anyway, as we have a process to have things changed that we don't like. Potentially, according to what I read, a murderer could be released simply based on how the jury "feels" about things, and the state wouldn't be able to have a second bite of the apple, and nothing can be done to the juries of course. I don't know specifically what authority judges have in overruling verdicts in such cases, but if I were the judge, a more realistic verdict would be set forth.

You're right that a murderer could be released but it would take all jurors to make that decision. If only one was of that mind then it's a hung jury with a retrial and I don't think too many are questioning the Constitutionality of murder.

[aboutime]

He doesn't appear to be correct. In a trial I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge making a decision regarding the Constitutionality of the law in question.



You're right that a murderer could be released but it would take all jurors to make that decision. If only one was of that mind then it's a hung jury with a retrial and I don't think too many are questioning the Constitutionality of murder.

JUDGES....ALL JUDGES are bound by, and sworn to conduct, protect, and enforce the Constitution.

Judges are IN CHARGE and authorize the use of laws...via the constitution, and protect all parties UNDER the constitution. Judges do not have any other duties.

[fj1200]

JUDGES....ALL JUDGES are bound by, and sworn to conduct, protect, and enforce the Constitution.

Judges are IN CHARGE and authorize the use of laws...via the constitution, and protect all parties UNDER the constitution. Judges do not have any other duties.

Judges can't overrule a jury in questions of guilt or innocence.

[aboutime]

Judges can't overrule a jury in questions of guilt or innocence.


YES, THEY CAN. And they have. Judges have the power to reject jury verdicts. You should know that.

[fj1200]

YES, THEY CAN. And they have. Judges have the power to reject jury verdicts. You should know that.

In very limited circumstances and not in the case of overruling an acquittal.


A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal) in United States criminal cases because it would violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) right to a trial by jury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury). However, if the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_set_aside_judgment) after the jury convicts, this may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution, as the verdict was different previously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

[aboutime]

In very limited circumstances and not in the case of overruling an acquittal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict


Make up your mind. You first INSISTED they cannot do it. Putting mouth in motion, before putting Mind in Gear is a loser every time.
But you had to qualify it in order to avoid admitting what I said..Right?

That's what I hate about people who MAKE STUFF UP to impress themselves, and others.

[Gunny]

When called upon, the jury foreman announces: "After due deliberations, we have reached a determination that the law upon which the defendant is charged is unconstitutional, and we find the defendant not guilty."

Any thoughts on this?

Jury nullification? All you have to do is ask about it when they first screen you and you get sent home.

IIRC, it's where the prosecution has proven its case; yet, the jury does not agree with the law itself. Yep. In by 7, out by 9.

I'd hang a jury 11-1 as well if I thought something didn't smell right.

[Gunny]

The prosecution may have something to say about that. I'm not sure the jury has the acumen or authority to make that declaration. All that is sufficient is "not guilty".

If you think that means the jury can set a legal precedent, I doubt it...but I'm not a lawyer so that's just a WAG.

Sure the jury does. The jury cannot set a legal precedent. It can however find someone not guilty even if the prosecution has proven its case. It's called jury nullification and is QUITE legal.

[Gunny]

I have a feeling that is dependent on state law. I recall Neal Boortz making the statement that he would refuse to convict a drug case on that reasoning and he said it was legal option in the State of Georgia.

The precedent is Federal, not state.

[Gunny]

Liking or disliking their actions aside, the don't have the ability or right to determine what is or is not constitutional. Their job is to make a decision based on the facts presented by both sides, and based on the judges directions. In fact, they should ONLY be deciding based on the facts presented.

They likely wouldn't even be permitted to make such a statement. I don't know how the judge would handle such a situation. They would probably only succeed in having the judge declare a mistrial. Simply put, juries don't get to create or strike down the laws that defendants are charged with breaking.

That would be incorrect. Now, the court tries to make you swear to do such a thing as you mention, that is true. However the jury DOES have the right to determine whether it believes the law is just.

Jury nullification is not grounds for mistrial.

I learned on this crap googling how to get out of jury duty.:laugh:

[Gunny]

Of course but you can't dismiss it so regularly when it's possible and Constitutionally guaranteed in four states.

It's guaranteed in more than 4.

[Gunny]

They can ignore law, they cannot unilaterally determine/change law. If they IGNORE the law, for example, on a drug possession charge. It's not like suddenly that particular law on possession is struck from the law. They simply ignored the law.

It isn't changing the law. It's disagreeing with the law.

[fj1200]

Make up your mind. You first INSISTED they cannot do it. Putting mouth in motion, before putting Mind in Gear is a loser every time.
But you had to qualify it in order to avoid admitting what I said..Right?

That's what I hate about people who MAKE STUFF UP to impress themselves, and others.

Considering the context of the thread and acquittal by nullification then my statement was accurate. If you want to quibble over meaningless points then have at it if it makes you feel better.

[fj1200]

It's guaranteed in more than 4.

I suppose it's guaranteed in all of them but apparently only Constitutionalized in four. :)

[revelarts]

I suppose it's guaranteed in all of them but apparently only Constitutionalized in four. :)
It's constitutional in ALL states.
It's just only 4 state wrote down that they recognize and support the constitutional option.

It's constitutional to own a gun.
But Washington D.C. didn't recognize the right for some time.
Just because some jurisdictions claim they can deny your rights, doesn't mean it's constitutional.

A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.
Fredrick Douglas

The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble,it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. –
Potter Stewart (1915-1985), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham, 1967

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. –
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. –
Justice William O. Douglas

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
– Justice William O. Douglas

The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it. –
Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York; 1939

[revelarts]

"Edward Bushell was an ordinary man whose dedication to an ideal marks a great turning point in human justice. In 1670, Bushell was jury foreman at the sedition trial of William Penn in London. Penn, who later went on to found the American colony of Pennsylvania, was on trial for being a Quaker and speaking publicly. No evidence was introduced at the trial regarding the content of Penn's speech, but a great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that the King had taken a personal interest in the trial and wanted Penn condemned. It took Bushell and the jury less than fifteen minutes of deliberation to return a verdict of Not Guilty (actually, the verdict merely said that Penn was guilty of speaking to an assembly - not a crime even then). The presiding judge was apoplectic. He ordered the jury back into deliberations and fined them all forty marks (about two years' wages). When they again returned the same verdict, he threatened to have Bushell's nose cut off for defying the King. He said "Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict the court will accept; and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, or by the help of God, you shall starve for it."

The entire jury spent several nights in London's infamous Newgate prison, but uniformly refused to return a verdict of Guilty. When the judge demanded to know when Bushell would change his mind the answer he received was unequivocal. "Never," replied Bushell. Eventually, Penn was set free and the jury imprisoned. Bushell spent several weeks in one of the worst prisons in England. On appeal, England's Chief Justice, Justice Vaughn, affirmed that a jury must be free to speak its conscience and cannot be fined for it's verdict. Bushell's case, 84 Eng. Rep. 1123; 6 State Trials 999 (C.P. 1670).

The courage of Edward Bushell and his fellow jurors established for all time the independence of juries in the Common Law nations. The most cherished part of our legal system was given weight and validity by sixteen common men possessed of an uncommon courage. And at their head was Edward Bushell."

[aboutime]

Considering the context of the thread and acquittal by nullification then my statement was accurate. If you want to quibble over meaningless points then have at it if it makes you feel better.


The master of quibble telling someone else about quibbling is expected from you.

[fj1200]

The master of quibble telling someone else about quibbling is expected from you.

I will quibble over what matters, you are quibbling over what does not.

[Perianne]

I will quibble over what matters, you are quibbling over what does not.

You guys realized you are quibbling about quibbling?

[Drummond]

I'm anything BUT qualified to discuss Constitutionality in American courts, and what is or is not permitted for a jury to rule upon.

I simply question how the US Constitution can have meaning, if any part of the judicial machinery, of which courts are a part, have the smallest capacity to set a decision in opposition to it.

Didn't I just see reference from Revelarts to a trial in England ? England, and the UK, has NO comparable Constitution, so is not bound by one. It isn't, nor can be, a consideration. So ... on what possible basis does this impinge on America's own laws, and its own well-established Constitution ?

[Drummond]

I will quibble over what matters, you are quibbling over what does not.

Correction: you will quibble over what YOU think matters.

And you'll do it at every conceivable opportunity. Practice makes perfect, after all ....

[revelarts]

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defence whatsoever against oppression.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.

The trial by jury is a trial by 'the country,' in contradistinction to a trial by the government. The jurors are drawn by lot from the mass of the people, for the very purpose of having all classes of minds and feelings, that prevail among the people at large, represented in the jury.
― Lysander Spooner

"We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”
― Winston S. Churchill

“Our civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the thing that I felt in that jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles

[Gunny]

I'm anything BUT qualified to discuss Constitutionality in American courts, and what is or is not permitted for a jury to rule upon.

I simply question how the US Constitution can have meaning, if any part of the judicial machinery, of which courts are a part, have the smallest capacity to set a decision in opposition to it.

Didn't I just see reference from Revelarts to a trial in England ? England, and the UK, has NO comparable Constitution, so is not bound by one. It isn't, nor can be, a consideration. So ... on what possible basis does this impinge on America's own laws, and its own well-established Constitution ?

Where've YOU been? US law is based on English law. The Constitution is based on the Magna Carta. ;)

[Gunny]

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defence whatsoever against oppression.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.

The trial by jury is a trial by 'the country,' in contradistinction to a trial by the government. The jurors are drawn by lot from the mass of the people, for the very purpose of having all classes of minds and feelings, that prevail among the people at large, represented in the jury.
― Lysander Spooner

"We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”
― Winston S. Churchill

“Our civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the thing that I felt in that jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles

What would be the point of a jury if it did not have the right to decide guilt or innocence? I will further add, if the entire jury believes the law is stupid, then jury nullification applies.

If one man thinks the law is stupid, and truly believes it, hang the jury. I wouldn't budge.

[indago]

I'm anything BUT qualified to discuss Constitutionality in American courts, and what is or is not permitted for a jury to rule upon.

The jury doesn't "rule" upon anything: they arrive at conclusions, make decisions, and then announce their findings.

[fj1200]

Correction: you will quibble over what YOU think matters.

It is in those details where you are proven to be an ignorant hack. See below:


I'm anything BUT qualified to discuss Constitutionality in American courts, and what is or is not permitted for a jury to rule upon.

I simply question how the US Constitution can have meaning, if any part of the judicial machinery, of which courts are a part, have the smallest capacity to set a decision in opposition to it.

Well that first part is certainly true. Nevertheless a jury engaging in nullification is not deciding in opposition to the Constitution they are empowered to uphold it in a small way. Also the very nature of our system gives the "judicial machinery" the job of deciding based upon the Constitution.

[Gunny]

It is in those details where you are proven to be an ignorant hack. See below:



Well that first part is certainly true. Nevertheless a jury engaging in nullification is not deciding in opposition to the Constitution they are empowered to uphold it in a small way. Also the very nature of our system gives the "judicial machinery" the job of deciding based upon the Constitution.

The "oath" they make you take in Texas is worded in a way to dissuade anyone from any notion other than "only what we present". Sadly, most people that show up for jury duty are either ignorant, or know-it-all's. The latter bring notebooks and crap, and take notes.

At the time, I was working and didn't have time to fool around with jury duty so I wanted an out. It seems if you mention the Constitution or jury nullification, they almost choke on their coffee. That and my boots, wranglers, pearl snap shirt and drawl usually works. Nobody likes an educated redneck. :D

Aside from that, I happen to believe in doing what is right, not what is mandated by the state. The movie "A Time To Kill" is a PERFECT example of jury nullification.