[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL Source: From The Trenches URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165 Published: Jun 2, 2017 Author: Justin Gardner Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 119073 Comments: 422 Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.” Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-23) not displayed.       .       .       . #24. To: Tooconservative (#22) "You're kind of making up that whole "nullification conviction" thing." I got it from your FIJA web site. Go to fija.org and click on Juror's Handbook. Page 12: "When jurors get wind of the appearance that at least some of our most fundamental rules are really just window dressing, what protection will we have against "nullification convictions" by jurors who refuse to release dangerous or despicable villains entitled to acquittals on the basis of seemingly unjust legal technicalities? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pinguinite (#23) "You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster." My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Tooconservative (#22) "If juries refuse repeatedly to convict, that law becomes nullified and no prosecutor will bring a case to court" Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:22:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, misterwhite (#7) I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal. Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic. The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. That possibility proceeds in the face of double jeopardy claims on the theory that jeopardy never attached in the trial with the rigged jury. A judge issuing an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict I believe is most commonly issued when the judge decides he erred in sending the case to the jury as there was insufficient evidence presented to justify a finding of guilty. If a juror should be found, during a trial (before a verdict) to be engaging in juror nullification (or intending to do so), said juror may be removed from the jury. Defense counsel may not argue jury nullification. Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edition, West Publishing, Thomson Reuters (2009), by Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, and Orin S. Karr [footnotes omitted] [1075] (f) Jury Nullification. The function of the jury is commonly said to be that of ascertain­ing the facts and then applying the law, as stated by the judge, to those facts. Indeed, it is not at all unusual for a jury in a criminal case to be instructed that it has the “duty” to proceed in such a fashion. But it is nonetheless true that, a jury in a criminal case has the power to acquit even when its findings of fact, if literally applied to the law as stated by the judge, would have resulted in a conviction. This is because a jury verdict of not guilty is not subject to reversal or to review in any manner whatsoever. On occasion, juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise. Some have argued that this practice, usually referred to as jury nullification, is part of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Arguably the language that the Supreme Court has used to describe that right appears to encompass the nullification process. In Duncan v. Louisiana; holding that right applicable to the states, the Court declared that in the view of the framers “[i]f the defen­dant preferred the commonsense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it.” Similarly, in emphasizing the need for juries drawn from a cross-section of the community the Court later asserted: “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exer­cise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the profession­al or perhaps overconditioned or biased re­sponse of a judge." Rather than treating nullification as an af­firmative right of the accused (or the juror), however, most courts treat the jury’s nullifica­tion power as an inevitable by-product of the finality of verdicts of acquittal. As a result, pre-verdict procedures discouraging nullifica­tion abound. Members of the venire who admit that they will not follow the law may be ex­cused for cause, for example. And in United States v. Thomas, the Second Circuit conclud­ed that a juror’s intent to acquit regardless of the evidence constitutes a basis for the juror’s removal during the deliberations, reasoning, “Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court * * * 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.” The prevailing view is also that the Consti­tution does not require that a jury be told [1076] specifically that it has the power to disregard the law and acquit. This view is often attrib­uted to Sparf and Hansen v. United States."Two sailors charged with murder asked the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the judge refused on the ground that there was no evidence which would support a manslaughter verdict. Rather, he instructed: “In a proper case, a verdict for manslaughter may be rendered, * * * and even in this case you have the physical power to do so; but as one of the tribunals of the country, a jury is expected to be governed by law, and the lawr it should receive from the court.” Holding the jury had not been improp­erly instructed, the Supreme Court reasoned that “if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matters of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.” It is fair to say that Sparf did not settle the jury nullification issue, for the Court did not address the specific question whether jurors should be told they can refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when they conclude that jus­tice so requires. But lower courts have rather consistently ruled that no such instruction should be given, that defense counsel may not make a nullification closing argument, and that “the potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.” When jurors have no responsibility for sen­tencing, for example, a court will typically prohibit them from learning of the sentencing consequences of their verdict through evidence or argument. This ensures that their decision to convict or acquit is based entirely on the evidence of guilt or innocence and not upon their punishment preferences for the defen­dant. One leading case on the propriety of limiting the information and argument provided to the jury on its power to disregard the law is Unit­ed States v. Dougherty." There the court con­cluded that the “jury system has worked reasonably well overall” without resort to a nullification instruction, “with the jury acting as a ‘safety valve’ for exceptional cases, out being a wildcat or runaway institutution. This is because, the court explained, the jury “gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system” not only from judge’s instructions but also through “the formal communication from the total culture," and the “totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” The court expressed fear that a nullification instruction would upset the existing balance and produce more hung juries. Finally, the court in Dougherty declared that such an instruction would deprive the individual juror of an important protection he now enjoys and to which he is entitled: that “when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.” In opposition to the Dougherty position, it has been contended that there is no reason to assume that juries will act in a different and less desirable way if informed about their nullification power, that there are political advantages to be gained by not lying to the jury, and that a nullification instruction would serve to discourage acquittals based on prejudice instead of encouraging them, by setting justice and conscience as the standards for acquittal rather than leaving the jurors to use their own biases as standards. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-03   23:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#25) My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: nolu chan (#27) The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. Hmmm...it almost sounds contradictory. I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant. It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   1:04:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: misterwhite (#26) Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda? Don't forget that juries are supposed to be a random cross section of the general public. A Gilligan's Island crew of unrelated people of every walk of life, so if most of them have a shared agenda, it would generally mean that it's also an agenda shared by most of the general public. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: misterwhite (#2) That was John Jays position you anti American dumb ass. You don't know your own nations history. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:34:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: misterwhite (#4) Fake and unconstitutional laws is the disruption of our legal system, not exercising free speech to tell the truth. You would have been a very good and loyal nazi. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#8) But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all No only statists like you look at judges as authority figures. It is like they are your some of your gods. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:40:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: misterwhite (#11) I'll agree with you this time. It would be double jeopardy. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:42:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: misterwhite (#13) I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote? That is an easy one. If they think the guy did something wrong they will convict. If it is one of those stupid laws you support like licensing 10 year olds to mow a lawn, or putting someone in jail for cutting a friend's hair. Then there will be at least one sane person to nullify the stupid laws. After all the first supreme court justice John Jay said it was the juries job to judge both the law and alleged crime. Everyone isn't like you thinking we should follow bullshit immoral "laws". A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:47:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: misterwhite (#16) Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. That explains a lot about you. You are a hater and you just want people you disagree with locked up. No wonder you are wrong so much of the time. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:52:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#18) the jury on nullification conviction. You are a dumb ass friend of tyrants. You don't convict someone be3cause you don't like them. You don't tell jurors that. Comprende asswipe.? A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:56:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: misterwhite (#20) But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed They should be informed. People have free speech rights despite assholes like you who hate free speech. Who hate the constitution. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:58:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: misterwhite (#25) My only point was that if You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   8:00:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Pinguinite (#28) "Fair? Fair to whom?" To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law. The jury has the power to acquit AND the power to convict. How is it fair to instruct the jury that they can ignore the law and acquit, while not telling them they have the power to ignore the law and convict? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Pinguinite (#28) "The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step." That's only one part. Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law. When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:20:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28) "Nullification serves as a test of the law itself" You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:26:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Pinguinite (#28) Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. It's re-writing the law as it applies to that one individual. It is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-American to have one set of rules for some and a different set for others. Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)? A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit. You have no problem with that? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: A K A Stone (#39) You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it. Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:40:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: misterwhite (#40) "Fair? Fair to whom?" To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law. How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror? And how could anyone argue that a society of living, breathing people are bound to dispense fairness to a "rule of law" as though it was a person with rights, when it's the other way around, that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society? Fair to the Rule of Law? Give me a break. The law serves the people. The people do not serve the law. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#41) Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law. That is your whole claim, but this whole debate is about whether jurors should have the option to NOT do this, but acquit if they feel the law is bad, or otherwise should not be applied in a specific case for any reason. When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man. No we don't have the rule of man as the verdicts do not change the law itself. Obviously the legal system is not perfect as guilty people go free and innocent people get convicted (and have even been exonerated after execution), so if that is not considered the "rule of man" then the legal system can survive nullification as well. Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases, and it's value to society would greatly outweigh the possibility of harm of errant verdicts in individual cases. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:36:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: misterwhite (#42) "Nullification serves as a test of the law itself" You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. Yes, I do know that. The very definition of Nullification is when jurors judge the law. While nullification couldn't be proven in any individual case, it would be easily apparent if nullification was happening on a large scale involving a specific law, as is reputed to have happened with the Fugitive Slave Act and certainly was in play in the famous William Tell trial. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors are first and foremost humans, and that is the reason why they are used to render judgments in jury trials. They are chosen because they are human, not in spite of being human. Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? Like I said, injustice occurs regularly in the legal system in spite of best intentions, and OJ's acquittal certainly was no result of nullification. They just didn't think he did it for whatever reason. Are you afraid that nullification would means murderers would be routinely acquitted? Do you think the average person believes murder should be legal? There's no way that's true. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:48:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: misterwhite (#43) You are attempting to completely mischaracterize nullification with your examples. Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)? A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit. I have a problem with all those things but none of them have anything to do with jury nullification. I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim. And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Pinguinite (#45) "How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?" Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time. "... that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?" I agree. The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Pinguinite (#46) "Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases" Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction? If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient? Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Pinguinite (#48) "I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim." Yeah. I was wondering when you'd get around to disclosing your true intention. You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal. The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Pinguinite (#48) And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Disregard the black and Hispanic prisoners and our per capita incarceration rate is no different than any other industrialized nation. There's nothing wrong with our laws. Our problem is that a disproportionate number of minorities violate them. Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:47:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: misterwhite (#49) Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time. You completely dodged my point. "Fair" to whom? It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification. You are just struggling to invent anything you can against nullification. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free. Whether the man is truly guilty or not is determined by the jury. If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict. And if a jury feels that way after all considerations in a trial environment, then who are you as an outsider to tell them they ruled wrongly? If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers. As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that, in which case it's no more a violation of law than a presidential veto is of a law passed by Congress, and in fact, far more limited, of course. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:52:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: misterwhite (#50) Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction? You refer not to what juries can do, as obviously juries are free to do both right now. You are instead referring to instructions given to juries. And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant, not the prosecution, and instructing juries that they may convict absent any violation of the law would carve away at that benefit of a doubt. So no, it shouldn't be done for that reason. If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient? They can, obviously, and may if they feel a true thug would walk free on a mere technicality. Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality? Forced? You're losing this debate with that question. Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other. (The William Tell trial being one exception). Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Pinguinite (#53) "It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification." Yes, but you're missing my point. I'm saying IF the jury is informed about nullification acquittal then they should be informed about nullification conviction at the same time. Isn't presenting both sides "fair"? I'm not in favor of nullification of any kind. I'm merely suggesting that any information or instructions to the jury be complete, balanced, and fair. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:05:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#49) The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? You are a complete idiot. Go live in mainland China. buckeroo  posted on  2017-06-04   13:05:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: Pinguinite (#53) "If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict." He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society. "If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers." That's a cheap shot. I never said nor implied that. I believe the jury's decision should be guided by the rule of law. " As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that" Fine. Then, as part of the final test of criminal law, also allow for nullification conviction. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: misterwhite (#51) You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal. Apart from the occasional glass of wine, I don't do drugs. I don't smoke anything either. I'm sure a lot of people posting on this site, perhaps including you, are more into drugs than I am. The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue. You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not. I do believe the USA is overly bureaucratic (clearly it is) to the point where the founding principles of the country have been long since compromised, and I do see nullification as one means of many to make the USA a better place. I do think marijuana should be legal. I am less sure about what the legal status should be for harder drugs. I do not think that 535 legislators can reasonably represent the will of 300+ million people. I do favor a massive cut back of federal power, with some of that power restored to local government. I do think that the people of the US would be much better off if it was cut into about 6 smaller countries, so people in California don't have to put up with people from the southeast, and vice versa. And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws. I think of it as a form of veto power that can be held by the people, in whom all authority rightly rests as per the DoI: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Jury nullification is a means of ensuring that the governed do indeed lend consent regarding specific laws. It's a good and proper thing. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:21:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: misterwhite (#52) Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to? You've entered lala land, and it's clear there is little reason to continue further dialog with you on this thread. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:24:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Pinguinite (#54) "You are instead referring to instructions given to juries." Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given. "And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant" Well, that's an answer. Just not the right one. Benefit of a doubt has nothing to do with it. The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty. "Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other." "Forced" in the sense that the judge instructs the jury to vote based on the law. If the defendant goes free because the search warrant was signed in blue ink -- and the law says it must be signed in black ink -- I think the jury should be allowed to ignore that. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:25:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: misterwhite (#57) He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society. He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: Pinguinite (#58) "You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not." Ah! Then what "victimless crimes" were you referring to? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:28:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Pinguinite (#61) "He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head." Not guilty is a legal term. It does not mean innocent. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:30:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: Pinguinite (#58) "And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws." Yeah! Like in the 1800's when white juries used nullification to refuse to convict white men of murdering blacks. The good ol' days, right? Screw the rule of law. We average commoners will convict who WE want to convict. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:34:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (65 - 422) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com