Jury Nullification

[blake]

Hello All,

This may have already been discussed, however, I think it is of extreme importance that ALL Americans are aware of this and so I am posting this wherever readers of freedom might be found. Although the jury nullifcation movement to educate Americans has been around for sometime, especially with the the excellent work of, the informed jury associaition, I have seldom come across too many articles about it. Jury nullification is a very old concept that fills the America's earliest literature. Jury Nullification is written into the State Consitution of Maine, as well as other states. But becasue it gives the power of the last word on any law back to the average citizen, the legal profession actively supressed the information for decades. The informed jury assosiation had excellent handouts to give to people, however it was not appreciated by the buraeucrats who wanted to make sure they controlled the jury as much as they could. You know what happens when these Americasn have too much information about their rights!

Last week or maybe two weeks ago, some of you may have seen that the Governor of NH signed into law that the jury needs to be informed of this basic and ancient right that the jurors have always had, jury nullification, where the jury not only decides the fact of the case, but also has the power to decide on the applicability of the law itself. In other words they can say they don't like the law or they don't like how it is being applied to the individual being charge and therefore find the accused innocent.

I knew fifteen years ago consistutitionals who were in the in the State Legistlature in New Hampshire that were talking Jury Nullification up. I am delighted that finally it got the spotlight that it deserved, and that the door has been open to start educating the juror about this. I can only hope this news will go viral so that every American, in every state knows and understands jury nullification. But this will not happen unless it is talked about over and over and over. For all you professional marketers out there, how many times does someone has to be exposed to something before it finally sinks in?

Today I was sent this this article also about Jury Nullification, which I include below. I am wondering why after all these years of suppressing this information it is now starting to get more press. The power is and always has been with the people. If you ever find yourself in the jury box, and they are trying to convict someone of a crime such as failing to obtain health insurance, you can decide whether you feel obamacare, or what ever other law this person is being charged with, is a law that is just and consitutional. If you feel that the law is unconsitutional or unjust, like many stemming from the patriot act, you can just find the person not guilty even though he or she may have committed the "crime" the state had charged them with: like not having healthcare, or growing a garden for food, or giving food to a homeless person.

It must have been a dozen years ago, maybe more, perhpas some of you remember this story concerning Jury Nullification. I think it took place in Illinois. I think the man;s name was Whitey Hall, I might not have the name right. But he was accused of not paying income tax. His attorney asked for the law that made him liable for income tax, of course that was brushed aside. When the jury assemble to judge the case, the requested from the judge the law that made this man liable for income tax. The Judge wrote a note to teh jury saying they had all the information they needed. The jury therefore concluded that if they were not given the law, that this man was accused of breaking then perhpas there wasn't really a law that he was breaking therefore they found him not guilty. This isn't the best example of jury nullifcation. But it shows the power of the jury putting its foot down against bad law or ganster prosectuors. It would have been a better example of jury nullification had there actually been a law, and the jury found the person not guilty anyways becasue the of the many unconsitutional violations that happen with such an act by the American or State governments.

Please read the article below and tell a friend about this last word that we the people haev even over the Supreme Court Decisions IF we use it.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis



Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust



This below talks about some history of this and thoughts of some of our founding fathers about the issue of how important it was for the jury to have the power to nullify a law. This was a good read.... worth the time. Its also a way to take our country back.


Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust



"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong." ~ Alexander Hamilton, 1804.

'The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.'

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends.

A rural Illinois jury has found one of their peers innocent in a marijuana case that would have sent him to prison. Loren Swift (pictured below) was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and he faced a mandatory minimum of six years behind bars.

According to Dan Churney at MyWebTimes , several jurors were seen shaking Swift's hand after the verdict, a couple of them were talking and laughing with Swift and his lawyer, and one juror slapped Swift on the back.

The 59-year-old was arrested after officers from a state "drug task force" found 25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007. The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.

This jury exercised their right of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors never tell you this, but when you serve on a jury, it's not just the defendant on trial. It's the law as well. If you don't like the law and think applying it in this particular case would be unjust, then you don't have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

In jury nullification, a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her. There is intense pressure within the legal system to keep this power under wraps. But the fact of the matter is that when laws are deemed unjust, there is the right of the jury not to convict.

Jury nullification is crucially important because until our national politicians show some backbone on the issue of marijuana law reform, it's one of the only ways to avoid imposing hideously cruel "mandatory minimum" penalties on marijuana users who don't deserve to go to prison.

Prosecuting and jailing people for marijuana wastes valuable resources, including court and police time and tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive, law-abiding people have been deprived of their freedom, their families, their homes and their jobs. Let's save the jails for real criminals, not pot smokers.

The American public is very near the tipping point where a majority no longer believes the official line coming from Drug Warrior politicians and their friends at the ONDCP, gung-ho narcotics officers protecting their profitable turf, and sensationalistic, scare-mongering news stories used to boost ratings. They are starting to see through the widening cracks in the wall of denial when it comes to marijuana's salutary medical effects on a host of illnesses and its palliative effects for the terminally ill and permanently disabled.

People are coming to realize that not only have they been sold a lie when it comes to marijuana -- they've been sold a particularly cruel lie, a self-perpetuating falsehood of epic proportions that has controlled U.S. public policy towards the weed for 70 years now. The extreme cruelty of the lies told about marijuana by drug warriors is in the effects this culture of fear and intolerance has in the real world -- effects like long prison sentences for gentle people who are productive and caring members of society.

Because citizens are coming to this long-delayed realization, we are going to be seeing more and more cases like this where juries have chosen not to punish people for pot. As this consciousness permeates all levels of society, it is going to get harder and harder for prosecutors to get guilty verdicts in marijuana cases -- and that's a good thing.

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends... Not with a bang, but a whimper, as cousin T.S. would say.

What You Can Do

* If you ever serve on a jury where the defendant is accused of a marijuana crime, don't forget about jury nullification. Tell the other jurors you don't have to convict, even if all the evidence points to guilt, if you don't agree with the application of the law in this instance. And if you can't swing your peers to your way of thinking, at least you can cause the jury to return a hung verdict.

* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Drug Policy

* Change The Climate: Time to Tell the Truth About Marijuana

* Drug Policy Alliance: Alternatives to Prohibition and the Drug War

* Marijuana Policy Project

* National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court." ~ John Adams, 1771.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

[GCS1103]

I have seen jury nullification work in several criminal cases with the Dept. of Justice (U.S. Attorney Offices). Since most assistant U. S. attorneys are consumed with career advancement and not with a defendant's rights or mitigating circumstances, criminal attorneys who practice in federal district courts have turned to jury nullification more than ever. I get great satisfaction watching a federal prosecution go down the drain when the jury returns a Not Guilty verdict, under nullification.. What the jury is saying is: We understand that there was a law you violated, but the law was wrongly applied or simply ridiculous and we are nullifying that law in this particular case.

[humanalien]

So, in order to use jury nullification, you would have to have
all the jurers all vote the person on trial as innocent and then
tell the judge he is not guilty?

As i understand it, after the judge passes judgement, the jury
can't say, whoaa, we the jury choose to use jury nullification
and we change our vote to innocent.

Are both them statements correct?

[GCS1103]

Posted by humanalien (here)
So, in order to use jury nullification, you would have to have
all the jurers all vote the person on trial as innocent and then
tell the judge he is not guilty?

As i understand it, after the judge passes judgement, the jury
can't say, whoaa, we the jury choose to use jury nullification
and we change our vote to innocent.

Are both them statements correct?

In a "bench trial" the Judge renders the verdict, since there is no jury. In a jury trial, the jury renders the verdict, not the Judge. The Judge may give "instructions" to the Jury, which includes explanations of law, etc., but ultimately it's the jury that decides if a defendant is guilty or innocent.
In a jury nullification, the jury understands that the defendant broke the law, but despite this, they find the defendant Not Guilty because of the law, itself.

An example would be....what we call a "strict liability" case. If a person breaks a law, that is a strict liability law, there is no excuse or defense. Not knowing the law existed is not a defense. So, let's say "A" is the beneficiary of an "off shore trust" and the trust gave a loan to "A". If "A" does not file an IRS form called a 3520, "A" has broken the law and the financial penalties are stiff. If "A" went to trial in Federal District Court, and the jury in the case believed that "A" did not file Form 3520 ( i.e. "A" broke the law) they can still find "A" not guilty under jury nullification, because the law is so obscure. It's the law that is being nullified, not the underlying case.

[blake]

Posted by GCS1103 (here)
I have seen jury nullification work in several criminal cases with the Dept. of Justice (U.S. Attorney Offices). Since most assistant U. S. attorneys are consumed with career advancement and not with a defendant's rights or mitigating circumstances, criminal attorneys who practice in federal district courts have turned to jury nullification more than ever. I get great satisfaction watching a federal prosecution go down the drain when the jury returns a Not Guilty verdict, under nullification.. What the jury is saying is: We understand that there was a law you violated, but the law was wrongly applied or simply ridiculous and we are nullifying that law in this particular case.

Hello GCS1103,

Thanks for replying and the way you so succinctly summed jury nullification up. I am happy to hear that criminal attorneys, who practice in federal district courts , have turned to jury nullification. I am wondering how these attornies get the message to the jurors that they can vote their conscious and decide whether this law, under this circumstance, with this human is just in being enforced; or if the law is simply so ridiculous or unconstitutional it needs to be ignored by the jury, and therefore the jury finds the accused innocent. I am under the impression that the judge through his instructions to the jury never even hints at the possibilitiy of jury nullification; and that the juror can indeed judge both the facts of the case as presented by the attornies as well as the law that the accused alledgedly broke. How many times have jurors been interviewed after a trial and the have said that they did not want to convict the accused but he did break the law, even though the juror thought the law was wrong. Obviously, with jurors talking like that it would appear that many jurors have never been educated to the concept of jury nullification. So I would be interested in knowing since the judge doesn't give it in his instructions, does the attorney tryto get it across in his closing arguements clearly enoough to edcuate the jury on this important option?

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Posted by humanalien (here)
So, in order to use jury nullification, you would have to have
all the jurers all vote the person on trial as innocent and then
tell the judge he is not guilty?

As i understand it, after the judge passes judgement, the jury
can't say, whoaa, we the jury choose to use jury nullification
and we change our vote to innocent.

Are both them statements correct?

Hello humanalien,

Thanks for responding. The jury does not have to tell anyone, to my understanding, not even the judge why they found the accused guilty or innocent. If a human who clearly broke the law was found innocent, the jury doesn't say we used "jury nullification". Jury nullification is a concept not a specific law, although it is written into many State Constitutions. The founders of this country undertsood human nature, and just becasue a law has been passed or declared does not make it a good law. The only way the people can fight against bad law is in the jury box by not finding people guilty even though they broke the "bad" law. The juror never says they use jury nullification that is just a word describing what they do when they vote innocent clearly a human who has broken "the law" Just imagine all the people's lives who have been ruined becasue of some stupid law. How many 18- year- olds ended up in jail because of having a little pot on them? Why does America have more people in jail than any other nation? Obviously there is something very wrong with some of our laws and our justice system. No juror, or jury, ever has to say they used the concept, or their state constitutional right of jury nullification; that word need never be used; the jury just hands in a verdict of innocent. But after juries starts finding humans innocent of the same ridiculous, or hurtful law that even the Supreme Court upheld, that is when those in power gets the message that the good people of America are rejecting the law, and will continue to reject the law. It's a very safe and benign way of not just protesting anonymously, but actually helping out the victims of bad law. I have no idea of the workings of the justice system in England, but I do beleive jury nullification has it's ancient roots in England.

Sincerely,

Mr, Davis

[observer]

Dear Mr. Davis, or any other member with knowledge regarding this issue,

When sitting on a jury, can a juror request from the judge in the case an explanation of Jury Nullification for the edification of all the jurors involved in the case, and to the applicability of the concept in the State where the trial is being conducted?

Or, does a juror intent on nullifying the law in the matter being adjudicated have to produce his own documentation?

And.... if the last is the mater, is it allowable for the juror in question to bring his own documentation to the deliberation room?

[blake]

Posted by observer (here)
Dear Mr. Davis, or any other member with knowledge regarding this issue,

When sitting on a jury, can a juror request from the judge in the case an explanation of Jury Nullification for the edification of all the jurors involved in the case, and to the applicability of the concept in the State where the trial is being conducted?

Or, does a juror intent on nullifying the law in the matter being adjudicated have to produce his own documentation?

And.... if the last is the mater, is it allowable for the juror in question to bring his own documentation to the deliberation room?

Hello Observer,

Thanks for the question. Unless you are in New Hampshire where it was passed into law that the jurors need to be informed about jury nullification, it is more than likely that the judge will try to suppress that information as that information gives too much power to the jury that those in control do not want the jury to know they have. I think every American needs to be an informed juror, and it is best they get that information before they go to the jury box. A juror does not bring in documenatation on this. Nor does the jury talk to the judge about it. They simply go into the jury room to decide if the accussed in guilty or innocent according to the facts heard in the case. Then if they are informed jurors, they need to decide whether the law making the accused guilty is a law that should be respected ,or a law that should be disregarded and therefore hand in a verdict of innocent. The jury does not have to explain to anyone how they came up with the innocent verdict. However, while in the jury room it would be a good thing for those who are already informed on the option of jury nullification be able to explain it to other jury members who may not be informed. So it would be wise to check out the website the informed jury association to have all the facts you need to explain it in several ways that may be needed for others to understand who may have never heard of it before. You will not need any documentation becasue you will not speak of this to the judge. The jury will just do it if they feel it is the right thing to do. When I use to be active in this arena, I would carry a copy of the Maine Consitution and have people read the section themselves about how they can judge both the facts and the law of the case being tried. I suppose the jury could request a copy of their state constitution and it would be delivered to the jury room. So check out if it is written up in your state constitution as well. You would be surprised at how many Americans are unaware that each state has its own consitution. I remember doing some shows or talks several time when I asked an individual to please run over to their town hall and get a copy of their state constitution. So many times the individual would return and say " they never heard of it" So a lot of basic education needs to be done, beyond jury nullification if Americans are going to excerise their rights. But exercising their jury nullification rights can tell the Supreme Court where to go when they are playing poliics instead of upholding the Constitution.

When the jury nullfies a law, they just do it with the verdict that they turn in. No documenation is needed to do so, no explanation is needed to do so. It is very simple the jury just finds the accused innocent. And its easy to find an accused innocent when your conscious is telling you that human will be sent up the river becasue of bad law not becasue they did anything morally wrong. A killer deserves to get the guilty verdict. An eightteen-year-old caught with some pot does not. So again to exercise your juror's right to nullify a law, jury nullification, no documenation is necessary, the only requirements is being informed that you can vote your conscious and not as the judge directs you to vote. If you think the person is guility and the law finding him guilty is a just law, the juror votes guilty. If you think the person is guilty of breaking the law, but you think the law he or she is accused of is unconstitutional or just plain ridiculous, you simply turn in a verdict of not guilty. No documenation or explanation or even admission that the jurors nullfied the law in the jurors room is necessary or wise.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[risveglio]

Telling the judge and lawyers that I believe in jury nullification and would express the idea to the fellow jurors if I felt it necessary got me tossed out of the jury quickly the last time I had jury duty.

[blake]

Posted by risveglio (here)
Telling the judge and lawyers that I believe in jury nullification and would express the idea to the fellow jurors if I felt it necessary got me tossed out of the jury quickly the last time I had jury duty.

Exactly, risveglio. That is wise to say nothing and just know your rights and exercise them in the Jury room, otherwise you will neverbe picked as a juror. Even in New Hampshire with the new ruling I wouldn't profess to know anything about it. I would just vote my conscious in the jury room and not say a word about it before. Years ago when those in New Hampshire tired to handout information about jury nullification anywhere near the court house, people were shooed away if not worse. Best not to let those in power know the hand you will play. I do hope that you do share your knoweldge of jury nullification and the importance of playing it close to the chest with your fellow Americans . It took New Hampshire fifteen years of having those in the state legislature talking about this before the governor passed this law about jurors being informed. Will it take another fifteen years to educate those in New Hampshire? How many people will get hurt by an out of control government until Americans are educated to exercise this power in the jury room?

Jury Nullificaion is a very real practice that the founders of AMerica highly discussed and supported. Jury Nullification is safe and simple. It is not a risk as so many other more lethal confrontations with bad law can be. Yet, I never hear people discussing it. I am wondering why that is? Is it becasue it is so simple they don't beleive it? Unless people start talking about it. letting the power of mouth reign, this powerful right will not be used and many people will unjustly go to to jail. I hope that next person isn't the reader. Would you convict the parents of two eight- year- olds for allowing them to have a lemonade stand as guilty of not getting a business license? What laws are on the books that the reader disagrees with, and yet if part of a jury would the reader still vote to a verdict of guilty? Or would the reader exercise and feel confident in exercsing their right to nullify th elaw in the jury room without anyone's consent or opinion other than your fellow jurors?



Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Sierra]

Posted by blake (here)
Hello All,

This may have already been discussed, however, I think it is of extreme importance that ALL Americans are aware of this and so I am posting this wherever readers of freedom might be found.

Jury nullification is a very old concept that fills the America's earliest literature. Jury Nullification is written into the State Consitution of Maine, as well as other states. But becasue it gives the power of the last word on any law back to the average citizen, the legal profession actively supressed the information for decades. The informed jury assosiation had excellent handouts to give to people, however it was not appreciated by the buraeucrats who wanted to make sure they controlled the jury as much as they could. You know what happens when these Americasn have too much information about their rights!

Last week or maybe two weeks ago, some of you may have seen that the Governor of NH signed into law that the jury needs to be informed of this basic and ancient right that the jurors have always had, jury nullification, where the jury not only decides the fact of the case, but also has the power to decide on the applicability of the law itself. In other words they can say they don't like the law or they don't like how it is being applied to the individual being charge and therefore find the accused innocent.

Today I was sent this this article also about Jury Nullification, which I include below. I am wondering why after all these years of suppressing this information it is now starting to get more press. The power is and always has been with the people. If you ever find yourself in the jury box, and they are trying to convict someone of a crime such as failing to obtain health insurance, you can decide whether you feel obamacare, or what ever other law this person is being charged with, is a law that is just and consitutional. If you feel that the law is unconsitutional or unjust, like many stemming from the patriot act, you can just find the person not guilty even though he or she may have committed the "crime" the state had charged them with: like not having healthcare, or growing a garden for food, or giving food to a homeless person.

This below talks about some history of this and thoughts of some of our founding fathers about the issue of how important it was for the jury to have the power to nullify a law. This was a good read.... worth the time. Its also a way to take our country back.

Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong." ~ Alexander Hamilton, 1804.

'The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.'

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends.

A rural Illinois jury has found one of their peers innocent in a marijuana case that would have sent him to prison. Loren Swift was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and he faced a mandatory minimum of six years behind bars.

The 59-year-old was arrested after officers from a state "drug task force" found 25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007. The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.

This jury exercised their right of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors never tell you this, but when you serve on a jury, it's not just the defendant on trial. It's the law as well. If you don't like the law and think applying it in this particular case would be unjust, then you don't have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

Jury nullification is crucially important because until our national politicians show some backbone on the issue of marijuana law reform, it's one of the only ways to avoid imposing hideously cruel "mandatory minimum" penalties on marijuana users who don't deserve to go to prison.

Prosecuting and jailing people for marijuana wastes valuable resources, including court and police time and tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive, law-abiding people have been deprived of their freedom, their families, their homes and their jobs. Let's save the jails for real criminals, not pot smokers.

The American public is very near the tipping point where a majority no longer believes the official line coming from Drug Warrior politicians and their friends at the ONDCP, gung-ho narcotics officers protecting their profitable turf, and sensationalistic, scare-mongering news stories used to boost ratings. They are starting to see through the widening cracks in the wall of denial when it comes to marijuana's salutary medical effects on a host of illnesses and its palliative effects for the terminally ill and permanently disabled.

People are coming to realize that not only have they been sold a lie when it comes to marijuana -- they've been sold a particularly cruel lie, a self-perpetuating falsehood of epic proportions that has controlled U.S. public policy towards the weed for 70 years now. The extreme cruelty of the lies told about marijuana by drug warriors is in the effects this culture of fear and intolerance has in the real world -- effects like long prison sentences for gentle people who are productive and caring members of society.

Because citizens are coming to this long-delayed realization, we are going to be seeing more and more cases like this where juries have chosen not to punish people for pot. As this consciousness permeates all levels of society, it is going to get harder and harder for prosecutors to get guilty verdicts in marijuana cases -- and that's a good thing.

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends... Not with a bang, but a whimper, as cousin T.S. would say.

What You Can Do

* If you ever serve on a jury where the defendant is accused of a marijuana crime, don't forget about jury nullification. Tell the other jurors you don't have to convict, even if all the evidence points to guilt, if you don't agree with the application of the law in this instance. And if you can't swing your peers to your way of thinking, at least you can cause the jury to return a hung verdict.

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court." ~ John Adams, 1771.

As a medical marijuana user, I am extremely grateful this information is coming out. I've always known we had the right to vote as our hearts saw fit, I just never knew what it was called or where the right of jury nullification came from.

Thank G*d for wise Founding Fathers.

Thank you Mr. Davis, for this article.

Sierra

[humanalien]

I also learned a new trick that juries can use to.

Today, i was watching a movie (didn't catch the name of it) that was about
a priest that performed a exorcism on a woman, who eventually died anyway.

People were blaming the priest for her death because they thought the woman
was mentally ill and not possessed and there-fore, the priest caused her death
because he didn't get her the help that she needed.

At the end of the trial, the jurors came back with a guilty verdict and the judge
was about the do the sentencing. Before than though the judge already told the
priest that he would get 10 years in prison, if convicted.

Anyway, just as the judge was about to pass sentence, a juror stood up and asked
the judge if they could recommend a sentence and the judge said yes. The sentence
was time served and the priest got to go home.

This was suppose to have been a true story.

Would this be a form of jury nullification?

[blake]

Hello humanalien,

Thank you for sharing that story. However, I am wondering where that "suppose to be true story" took place.
I have never heard of a case like that; of course that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. However, I would say that is NOT a form of jury nullification. Becasue if the jury had nullified the law in the privacy and confidenetiality of the jury room, for that priest under those circumstances, they would have found the priest innocent with no explanation to the press or the judge or the prosecutioning attorney, they would have kept their power and made the decision. The fact that they found him guilty shows they did not nullify the law for the priest. Instead they found him guilty and bargined that they could work with the judge to get the sentence essentially nullified, very risky chance indeed in playing dice with a man they didn't think, in their hearts, should go to jail. The jury , in my opinion, should have decided that in this case, under these circumstances, the law on the books are not justified and therefore instead of finding him guilty, and risk losing the bargining effort with the Judge, they should have kept the power of the jury and simply have found hiim innocent. So the answer to your question is no because the jury gave up their power to nullify the law, and bargined with the judge instead.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Posted by Sierra (here)

Posted by blake (here)
Hello All,

This may have already been discussed, however, I think it is of extreme importance that ALL Americans are aware of this and so I am posting this wherever readers of freedom might be found.

Jury nullification is a very old concept that fills the America's earliest literature. Jury Nullification is written into the State Consitution of Maine, as well as other states. But becasue it gives the power of the last word on any law back to the average citizen, the legal profession actively supressed the information for decades. The informed jury assosiation had excellent handouts to give to people, however it was not appreciated by the buraeucrats who wanted to make sure they controlled the jury as much as they could. You know what happens when these Americasn have too much information about their rights!

Last week or maybe two weeks ago, some of you may have seen that the Governor of NH signed into law that the jury needs to be informed of this basic and ancient right that the jurors have always had, jury nullification, where the jury not only decides the fact of the case, but also has the power to decide on the applicability of the law itself. In other words they can say they don't like the law or they don't like how it is being applied to the individual being charge and therefore find the accused innocent.

Today I was sent this this article also about Jury Nullification, which I include below. I am wondering why after all these years of suppressing this information it is now starting to get more press. The power is and always has been with the people. If you ever find yourself in the jury box, and they are trying to convict someone of a crime such as failing to obtain health insurance, you can decide whether you feel obamacare, or what ever other law this person is being charged with, is a law that is just and consitutional. If you feel that the law is unconsitutional or unjust, like many stemming from the patriot act, you can just find the person not guilty even though he or she may have committed the "crime" the state had charged them with: like not having healthcare, or growing a garden for food, or giving food to a homeless person.

This below talks about some history of this and thoughts of some of our founding fathers about the issue of how important it was for the jury to have the power to nullify a law. This was a good read.... worth the time. Its also a way to take our country back.

Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong." ~ Alexander Hamilton, 1804.

'The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.'

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends.

A rural Illinois jury has found one of their peers innocent in a marijuana case that would have sent him to prison. Loren Swift was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and he faced a mandatory minimum of six years behind bars.

The 59-year-old was arrested after officers from a state "drug task force" found 25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007. The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.

This jury exercised their right of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors never tell you this, but when you serve on a jury, it's not just the defendant on trial. It's the law as well. If you don't like the law and think applying it in this particular case would be unjust, then you don't have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

Jury nullification is crucially important because until our national politicians show some backbone on the issue of marijuana law reform, it's one of the only ways to avoid imposing hideously cruel "mandatory minimum" penalties on marijuana users who don't deserve to go to prison.

Prosecuting and jailing people for marijuana wastes valuable resources, including court and police time and tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive, law-abiding people have been deprived of their freedom, their families, their homes and their jobs. Let's save the jails for real criminals, not pot smokers.

The American public is very near the tipping point where a majority no longer believes the official line coming from Drug Warrior politicians and their friends at the ONDCP, gung-ho narcotics officers protecting their profitable turf, and sensationalistic, scare-mongering news stories used to boost ratings. They are starting to see through the widening cracks in the wall of denial when it comes to marijuana's salutary medical effects on a host of illnesses and its palliative effects for the terminally ill and permanently disabled.

People are coming to realize that not only have they been sold a lie when it comes to marijuana -- they've been sold a particularly cruel lie, a self-perpetuating falsehood of epic proportions that has controlled U.S. public policy towards the weed for 70 years now. The extreme cruelty of the lies told about marijuana by drug warriors is in the effects this culture of fear and intolerance has in the real world -- effects like long prison sentences for gentle people who are productive and caring members of society.

Because citizens are coming to this long-delayed realization, we are going to be seeing more and more cases like this where juries have chosen not to punish people for pot. As this consciousness permeates all levels of society, it is going to get harder and harder for prosecutors to get guilty verdicts in marijuana cases -- and that's a good thing.

Maybe this is how the war on marijuana ends... Not with a bang, but a whimper, as cousin T.S. would say.

What You Can Do

* If you ever serve on a jury where the defendant is accused of a marijuana crime, don't forget about jury nullification. Tell the other jurors you don't have to convict, even if all the evidence points to guilt, if you don't agree with the application of the law in this instance. And if you can't swing your peers to your way of thinking, at least you can cause the jury to return a hung verdict.

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court." ~ John Adams, 1771.

As a medical marijuana user, I am extremely grateful this information is coming out. I've always known we had the right to vote as our hearts saw fit, I just never knew what it was called or where the right of jury nullification came from.

Thank G*d for wise Founding Fathers.

Thank you Mr. Davis, for this article.

Sierra

Hello Sierra,

Thank you for responding. I agree the founders of this country were wise about many things, and jury nullification is one of them. And I do hope this information continues to come out more and more until every person acting in the capacity of a juror has this information.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[blake]

Hello All

I came across yet another recent article on Jury Nullification and New Hampshire.

Sincerely,
Mr. Davis


New Hampshire Formally Recognizes Jury Nullification

Posted on 06 July 2012 by William Grigg


When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries – both grand and petit – was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant – and the validity of the law in question.

In contemporary America, however, trial by jury has been all but abolished in practice. Reviewing recent Supreme Court rulings, legal commentator Adam Liptak of the New York Times observes that in its just-completed term, the High Court “has turned its attention away from criminal trials, which are vanishingly rare, and toward the real world of criminal justice, in which plea bargains are the norm and harsh sentences commonplace.” (Emphasis added.)

The fact that the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, which is supposedly sacrosanct, has become all but extinct illustrates the extent to which the U.S. “justice” system has become Sovietized.

After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, the jury system — which had been established under Czar Alexander II in 1864 — was abolished and replaced with “People’s Courts” composed of a judge and a panel of two to six Party-appointed “assessors” who heard all of the evidence and decided all questions of both fact and law. The assessors “became known as `nodders’ for simply nodding in agreement with the judge,” wrote federal Judge John C. Coughenour in an article published by the Seattle University Law Review. “People’s assessors virtually always agreed with judges; acquittals were virtually nonexistent…. [U]nlike our adversarial system, the Soviet inquisitorial criminal justice system neither prioritized nor emphasized the rights of individual defendants, but instead paid homage to the interests of the state.”

One very telling measure of the Regime’s fear of citizen juries – especially those informed of their right to nullify unjust laws – is found in the efforts expended by prosecutors to prevent cases from going to trial.

In his 1998 book (co-written with Lawrence M. Stratton) The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts points out that “the vast majority of felony cases are settled with a plea bargain….” Many, perhaps most, “felonies” today involve no offenses against persons or property, no criminal intent, and are usually a product of an opportunistic prosecutor’s malicious creativity in confecting a criminal offense.

It is common for prosecutors to multiply charges as a way of terrorizing an innocent defendant into accepting a plea. Very rarely do we see a defendant with the means to defend himself in such circumstances. For the average citizen who finds himself targeted by an ambitious prosecutor, a plea bargain usually seems like the only relatively palatable alternative to the expense of a trial and the possibility of a long time in prison. At the bargaining table, “I’m all in” for the prosecutor means that, should he lose, he would sacrifice a little prestige, with the taxpayers absorbing all of the expenses; the defendant stands to lose everything and faces the prospect of utter ruin.

This is why so many innocent people are willing to deal. For the State, the most attractive feature of such arrangements is the fact that it keeps such cases away from juries. And we’re left with a “justice” apparatus that functions, in the words of legal scholar John Langbein, like “the ancient system of judicial torture,” which relied on self-incrimination through duress, rather than conviction on the basis of sound evidence.

Some recent developments offer encouraging signs that New Hampshire’s new law is part of a growing public trend toward jury nullification.

Police found Houston resident Israel Rangel in possession of less than a gram of cocaine – an amount equivalent to roughly half a sugar packet. He was arrested and charged with felony narcotics possession. When prosecutors vetted potential jurors, they found that 50 of the 130 candidates said they would not vote to convict someone accused of possessing such a tiny amount of cocaine.

The jury eventually acquitted Rangel of the charge. Lou Ellen Wheeler, who served on the jury, later said that the evidence against him was weak. But as defense attorney Todd Dupont pointed out, other jurors made it clear “they weren’t going to make somebody a felon and ruin their lives over a gram of cocaine.”

Prosecutor Julian Ramirez insisted that even though the amount involved was minuscule, possession of cocaine is a crime because “It’s the law.” However, it is the for the jury – not the trial judge, and certainly not the prosecutor – to define the law, even if this specific verdict merely reflected the poverty of a particular criminal case.

This is at least the second time a conscientious jury has nullified a foolish drug prosecution. Two years ago a Montana jury refused to convict a man for marijuana possession. Hopefully this kind of principled rebellion will become a nationwide epidemic.

Learn more about jury nullification here.

Read the text of New Hampshire’s jury nullification law here.





1 Comments For This Post
Keith Says:
July 9th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Thanks for covering this important news. A lot of people in NH worked hard to get HB 146 passed including the Speaker of the NH House, Sen. Jim Forsythe, pro-liberty lawyers, Ron Paul supporters and free staters.

[blake]

Hello All,

I am delight to yet see more on Jury Nullification. Lets hope this will spread, a tool to keep us safe from unconsitutional laws, or frame ups. But only if we have informed juries!

Jury nullification education still barely ‘legal’ in USA, rules judge
J. D. Heyes
Natural News
May 8, 2012

(NaturalNews) Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in the United States, according to a ruling by a federal judge last month.

U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said 80-year-old Julian Heicklin, who was arrested by FBI agents for passing out pamphlets marked “Jury Info” from an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association to an undercover agent, was within his legal rights under law to do so. Prosecutors had argued that Heicklin was in violation of U.S. law, which prohibits influencing jurors through written communication.

“Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts,” Wood wrote. “The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience.”

Jurors can be told about nullification, not about how to decide a specific case

Wood said Heicklen well understood his legal rights, and noted that Title 18 United States Code, which government lawyers cited in their prosecution, prevents trying to influence a juror in relation to specific cases or points of law. Heicklen was not doing that, Wood said. ......

also see:

http://www.infowars.com/new-hampshir...nullification/

Chuck Baldwin
chuckbaldwinlive.com
August 10, 2012

One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, “When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

“New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: ‘In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.’

“There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries–both grand and petit–was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant–and the validity of the law in question.” ......





+ +

[blake]

New Hampshire Governor Lynch and jury nullification

Posted By: Basil [Send E-Mail]
Date: Sunday, 2-Sep-2012 13:16:35
New Hampshire http://www.fija.org NEWS RELEASE

Governor Lynch has, for several years, recognized the Honor
due all citizens who have served as jurors, by his Proclamation
celebrating September 5, 2012 as "Jury Appreciation Day".

This annual national event commemorates the trial of William Penn. His jurors refused to convict him even though he had violated the government statute by preaching a religion not approved by the state. The judge imprisoned the jurors and they suffered deprivation of food and water, as inhumane coercion was inflicted by the judge. The jurors stood firm and refused to convict Mr. Penn until a higher court subsequently ruled that the jurors could not be prosecuted for their verdict, and the principle of "Jury Nullification" became firmly established
in law.

On June 18, 2012 Governor Lynch signed HB 146 legislation which
placed the "Fully Informed Jury" into statute as "Chapter 0243 Effective 01/010/2013." We invite all to join with us in celebrating September 5, 2012 as Jury Rights Day in the "Live Free or Die" State.

The need for jurors to be fully informed is self evident, as jurors are the conscience of the community and hold such nullifying power by authority enumerated in Article Eight, New Hampshire "Bill of Rights", wherein "All Power" is reserved to the people to nullify the acts of overzealous prosecutors, judges, and legislators

New Hampshire now has the celebrity of being the first state in the union to enjoy such legislation. More information may be viewed at
http://www.fija.org or you may dial 1-800-TEL-JURY and ask for information
to be sent to you free by mail.

Submitted by:
Dick Marple
FIJA Representative for New Hampshire
11 Dartmouth Street
Hooksett, New Hampshire Republic
603-627-1837

[Anchor]

Loved this article on the subject (Australian)

http://charterblog.wordpress.com/200...nullification/

The power that puts the jury above the law can never be safely entrusted to a single person or to an institution, no matter how great or how good. For it is an absolute power and, given time, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But jurors are anonymous characters who meet upon a random and unexpected summons to a single task (or perhaps a few), whose accomplishment is their dissolution. Power lies beneath their feet but they tread on it so swiftly that they are not burnt.

Why would countries be seeking to reduce the numbers of trials by jury and instead just have magistrates (for "small" matters).... wonder no longer.

[blake]

Lawyers: 'Nullify' to be common refrain in criminal court cases

ShareThis

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News



Douglas Darrell, from his website, pianoharptech.com, was found innocent of felony drug charges this week.
Linked articles:
Some lawmakers see marijuana case aiding push toward legalization
Juror says religion not a factor in nullification decision
Jury clears NH man of felony pot charge, use was part of Rastafarian religion



Criminal defense attorneys predict New Hampshire jurors routinely will be told they have the right to find someone innocent even if the state proves its case because New Hampshire has passed what appears to be the nation's first “jury nullification” law.

Earlier this month, a Belknap County Superior Court jury found a Barnstead man innocent of felony drug charges after the judge instructed jurors they could decide that acquittal was “a fair result,” even if the state had met the burden of proof.

It's a legal concept known as jury nullification, a power that experts say has resided in the U.S. Constitution since the nation began but is rarely applied in modern courtrooms.

And it's the basis for a new state law that permits the defense in all criminal cases “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

Chuck Temple is a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law, where he is director of the criminal practice clinic. In his 27 years of practice, he said, he has always asked judges to instruct juries about nullification — but has never had a judge do so.

Temple said the new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, “changes the landscape of how criminal cases will be argued.”

Before, he said, “in the vast majority of criminal cases, there would be no arguments regarding jury nullification. ... Now, it's going to be an everyday occurrence in criminal jury trials.”

The language of the new law is “rather inartful,” never actually mentioning nullification, Temple said. Still, he expects defense lawyers will start telling jurors about it right away; he plans to raise it in a trial set to start Monday in Merrimack County Superior Court.

“I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't,” he said. “It's just another seed I can plant in their minds in terms of what the fair thing to do is in a criminal case.”

Attorney Mark Sisti, who represented the defendant in the Belknap County case, said the verdict was “an example of just how powerful jury nullification really is.”

With the new law, Sisti said, he expects to see other acquittals come through jury nullification, in marijuana possession and statutory rape cases, for instance. And, he said, “I can envision scenarios even in murder cases....”

Judges have always had the discretion to give a jury nullification instructions, Sisti noted; “It's just that they have not done that.”

Under the New Hampshire Bar Association's Criminal Jury Instruction guidelines, here's what judges may instruct jurors: “Even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case.”[/U][/B]

Jury nullification is “a historical prerogative of the jury,” but that “does not mean that a jury must be informed by the judge of that power,” the guidelines note. Such instruction is “best given only when it is requested by a defendant or when the nature of a particular case otherwise warrants it.”

As of the new year, however, defense attorneys here can bring it up themselves. “It's a good tool, and it's been a long time coming,” Sisti said.

In fact, the new law nearly died in committee shortly after it was first introduced in 2011.

The original language would have required the court in all proceedings to “instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the facts and to nullify any and all actions they find to be unjust.”

The House Judiciary Committee unanimously voted the bill “inexpedient to legislate'' on Feb. 16, 2011. Just three weeks later, however, the same committee voted, 17-1, to pass an amended version of the bill.

What happened in between?

“What changed was that somebody pointed out that it was in the Republican platform that we're for jury nullification,” recalled Rep. Gregory Sorg, R-Easton, who was vice chairman of the committee at the time. “I guess it came down from Republican leadership they didn't like that result.”

Sorg, who is a real estate lawyer, said he and other committee members thought existing jury instructions were sufficient. And he worried about the message that passing a nullification law would send to would-be jurors.

“We're inviting them to tell us we passed bad laws,” he said. “We're inviting them to nullify the work we did, maybe on a whim. And that just doesn't sit right.”

Still, Sorg ended up voting for the amended version that didn't mention nullification but required the court to “instruct the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.”

By the time the Senate passed the measure the following January, the obligation had shifted from judges to the defense to inform the jury of that right. And a conference committee's final version, which Gov. John Lynch signed into law on June 18, applied it only to criminal cases.

Rep. Lucy Weber, D-Walpole, was the sole “no” vote when the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill the second time around.

“We are a nation of laws, and I think that the laws are there for all of us and I think they ought to be followed,” she said. “And to encourage people to ignore the law, I think, is a dangerous thing.”

“If we have laws that are unjust, either clearly unjust on their face or as they're applied, then you go to the Legislature and you change the law,” Weber said. “You change it for everyone.”

Dick Marple, a former Republican representative from Hooksett, is the state contact for the Fully Informed Jury Association, which promotes jury nullification.

Marple said New Hampshire is the first state to pass such a statute, a step he sees as “restoring a little justice to the system.”

“Because the jury is the conscience of the community,” he said.

[risveglio]

A Jury Nullification win right in my backyard!

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitu...ersey-weedman/