The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Article at LewRockwell.com on jury nullification  (Read 2141 times)

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
Article at LewRockwell.com on jury nullification
« on: December 04, 2009, 12:59:46 am »

There are four boxes available to us to defend our rights under the Constitution.  The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and if all those are taken from us, the cartridge box.

Judges and prosecutors are doing everything they can to neuter the power of the jury, but it is still available to us. They pile on charges so as to intimidate defendants to take a plea bargain and avoid a jury trial.  The judges intimidate and lie to jurors about their power, causing them to think they might get in trouble if they vote their consciences.  In federal court, if the charge is a "misdemeanor" with a sentence of 6 months or less, you don't get a jury trial.  Then they multiply charges.

If the judge asks you if you can follow the law as he gives it, say sure.  Take a silent mental reservation in your own mind, that you will believe the judge when he tells you what the law is.  But he can't force you to vote to convict against your conscience and sense of right and wrong.  A single vote is enough to hang the jury, and that is what you should do, if you can't convince the rest.  If the rest of the jury is hostile, just say you don't believe the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or the veracity of the informants, or the police.  A hung jury often causes the prosecutor to drop charges, and a bunch of hung juries make the law difficult to enforce.

We really don't want it to come down to the cartridge box.

Basil


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/emal1.1.1.html

 Jury Nullification
Why you should know what it is

by Russ Emal

Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict
according to your own conscience? "True," you say, but then why do most
judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not
to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant
affect your decision?

In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide
neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful
explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.

But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their
power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to
conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any
prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with
anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law. ...<snip>...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up