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: 119153
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 (1-39) not displayed.
.
.
.
#40. To: Pinguinite (#28)
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?
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.
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?
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?
Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
You are attempting to completely mischaracterize nullification with your examples. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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. 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.
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. They can, obviously, and may if they feel a true thug would walk free on a mere 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).
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.
You are a complete idiot. Go live in mainland China.
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.
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. 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: Jury nullification is a means of ensuring that the governed do indeed lend consent regarding specific laws. It's a good and proper thing.
You've entered lala land, and it's clear there is little reason to continue further dialog with you on this thread.
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.
He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head.
Ah! Then what "victimless crimes" were you referring to?
Not guilty is a legal term. It does not mean innocent.
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.
Don't call me an idiot when you're the one who can't comprehend what I'm saying.
-----------
The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.
Thank you. Will that be on the test?
Yes.
About the only such instructions given to jurors by judges is that it is illegitimate to nullify any law, that the duty of the jury is to judge the defendant on the charges and evidence and only on the legal grounds explained by the judge. I can't say I know of any case where any judge ever explained to a jury that they could nullify the law by exonerating a defendant, even if they were guilty. But there have been many cases where judges tried to intimidate juries or mislead them on this count. It's pretty routine for judges to do this, both state and federal. Nothing makes judges and prosecutors quite as mad as a jury they suspect of nullification. Maybe a little review of the origins of jury nullification is in order: This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial: In 1670, a grand jury refused to convict William Penn of unlawful assembly in Bushel's Case. The judge attempted to find the jury in contempt of court; this was ruled inappropriate by the Court of Common Pleas. In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Seven Bishops of the Church of England of seditious libel. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the Crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entick respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the Crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers.
Once the jury knows all their facts, they will vote with their conscience. But of course that depends on how the prosecution wants to relay those facts to the jury. If the jury does not have all the facts, because a corrupt prosecution team has opted to withhold pertinent information, then the jury has no options. It becomes a mistrial and possible collusion as well as misapplication of the law. The only option that is left is for this entire mess to be reviewed under standard review by the appellate courts.
Watch this movie. It's an excellent example of how the jury is manipulated by the prosecution and the lawyers involved. It's one of my favorites and explains how the real world works in our courtrooms. And from personal experience I have known of court clerks colluding with opposing counsel teams to have perfectly legitimate cases thrown out by tampering with witnesses and evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury
Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead. Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.
No it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers. Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies. Then I suggest a reader for you to get keen insight on how courts, judges and lawyers prepare you for the trial process to grooming your client. It's entitled, The First Trial by Steven H. Goldberg
That is why you were mentally incapable of responding to even one post.
They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict). The problem is that if they do that to override an acquittal, they are very likely (though not absolutely certain) to be overridden on appeal, so they generally don't do it.
They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.
Yeah, but I still hate the movie for it's libtard gun grabber theme, and the dopey notion that it's the manufactures fault if you get harmed by their product. Sue the spoon manufacturer for making Michael Moore a fat slob! /s You're right. This is a civil trial option only. In civil trials judges can overrule a jury finding for the defendant.
But in civil trials there are no convictions or acquittals, only findings for plaintiff or defendant.
Comments (81 - 422) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Fair? Fair to whom?"
#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."
#42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28)
"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"
#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.
#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.
#45. To: misterwhite (#40)
"Fair? Fair to whom?"
To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.
#46. To: misterwhite (#41)
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.
#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.
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?
#48. To: misterwhite (#43)
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.
#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?"
#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"
#51. To: Pinguinite (#48)
"I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim."
#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.
#53. To: misterwhite (#49)
How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.
#54. To: misterwhite (#50)
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?
#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."
#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?
#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."
#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.
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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
#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?
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
"You are instead referring to instructions given to juries."
#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.
#62. To: Pinguinite (#58)
"You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not."
#63. To: Pinguinite (#61)
"He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head."
#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."
#65. To: buckeroo (#56)
You are a complete idiot.
#66. To: misterwhite (#60)
The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.
It so happened that the man whose horse had been stolen had always made it a point to get the best of any person with whom he had any dealings. He had never tried to do anything good for anyone other than himself. Consequently, the man whose horse had been stolen didn’t have a single friend in the entire town. The case was tried and presented to the jury.
The evidence against the accused man was pretty strong. After about thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury returned to the court chambers.
“What is your verdict?” inquired the judge.
There were a few moments of silence and then the chairman spoke. “We find the defendant not guilty if he will return the horse.”
“I cannot accept that verdict. You will have to retire until you reach another verdict,” said the judge. The jury went back into their room to deliberate toward another verdict.
They re-entered the courtroom. They took their place in the jury box and the courtroom grew silent.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” began the judge, “have you reached a verdict?” The chairman of the jury stood up.
“Yes we have, your honor,” he replied. “What is your verdict?” asked the judge.
“We find the defendant not guilty, and he can keep the horse!”
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
#68. To: buckeroo (#67)
The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.
#69. To: misterwhite (#68)
#70. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite (#60)
(Edited)
Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.
There were other key cases in which juries were terribly mistreated by officials, suffering years of imprisonment, etc. So it was a Big Thing at the time and our laws and history still reflect that today.
Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the Crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. This was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined. His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy'. This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days' hearing, acquitted Lilburne — who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done — to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.[19]
In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death".[20]
#71. To: misterwhite (#13)
I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?
#72. To: Tooconservative (#29)
(Edited)
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.
#73. To: goldilucky (#72)
#74. To: Tooconservative (#73)
(Edited)
Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead.
#75. To: misterwhite (#44)
Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.
#76. To: Pinguinite (#5)
Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals
#78. To: goldilucky, Tooconservative, *Bang List* (#74)
(Edited)
it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#79. To: A K A Stone (#77)
They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]