Jury Nullification: The Reason You Shouldn't Avoid Jury Duty

[t0rnado]

FULL Article: http://www.unelected.org/jury-nullification-invalidating-laws

Snippet:
"“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

After the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the Volstead Act, the sale and transportation of alcohol became prohibited in the United States. Jurors in criminal cases involving the sale of alcohol faced a multitude ethical questions: Is it moral to imprison a person for distributing a liquid? Who is the victim of this supposedly criminal act? If a crime has no victim, is it a crime? For the majority of Americans, the answers to the aforementioned questions were, at least in the context of alcohol, obvious . By selling or transporting alcohol, a person hasn’t impeded upon the rights of anyone else and should not be arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. Fortunately, for some bootleggers, many juries during the Prohibition Era chose to acquit anyone charged with transporting or selling alcohol. The jurors ignored the existing laws and made their own judgments as to whether the actions in question should be considered criminal or not. This led to the eventual passage of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th, as politicians realized that it would not be feasible to continue to prosecute people for something that the majority of Americans did not oppose.

The exact process that led to the repeal of alcohol prohibition is now being used to slowly invalidate modern drug laws. In December of 2010, a Montana jury pool refused to convict a man who had been charged with possessing marijuana. When the district judge presiding over the case asked potential jurors whether they agreed with the law, only five out of the group of 27 raised their hands making it impossible for the judge to seat a jury and expect a conviction. The jurors, who were adamantly opposed to Montana’s marijuana law, which makes it a crime to possess any amount of marijuana, effectively nullified the law and prevented the state from imprisoning a man for a victimless crime. By taking a valiant stand, these jurors invalidated a law and sent a clear message to prosecutors in Montana who wish to cage people for frivolous reasons.

[villager]

1. Thanks for this! There's too little talk of "jury nullification," and certainly those running things

...don't like word of such a citizen lever on power to get out...

[Newest Reality]

2. I always appreciate it when

this subject gets attention.

Thanks!

[ejpoeta]

3. thanks. i never really understood what jury nullification meant. this really

opened my eyes. so if enough citizens believe a law is wrong and refuse to convict it makes it impossible to prosecute? hmm. interesting. maybe someday we will get there.

[sabrina 1]

10. Yes, for a long time we were led to believe that there was

something wrong with it. The FF specifically wanted the people to have the power to judge the law if it became clear that the law itself was wrong. They understood that there would be bad laws and that jurors would have to convict people under them. So this was their way of giving the jury the power to look at the law itself before convicting someone.

However, as time passed, rulings were made forbidding the judge and the attorneys from informing the jury that they had that right. So, if people are not aware of it themselves, no one is going to tell them about it. But if only one juror is aware, s/he can inform the other jurors if they are having a problem with the law itself and they can then act on it.

I always wondered why activists who oppose the drug laws did not educate people about this as it would be a powerful tool against those laws since Congress refuses to do anything about them.

We, the people, were given a lot of power by the FFs. And when our elected officials refuse to act on our behalf, there are ways for us to do so without them.

[jtuck004]

4. Thank you. Informative. eom

[struggle4progress]

5. Hmm. Nullification's a double-edged sword. In the Jim Crow South, white juries wouldn't convict

violent racists for brutal crimes.

[villager]

17. Kind of like saying voting's a double-edged sword, since GOP sociopaths often win?

the point is, nullification is one of the only levers of reform actually left to us....

[struggle4progress]

18. "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast. And if you cut them down,

do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

[Lisa0825]

6. The last time I was called to jury duty was a drug case...

During voi dire, we were asked if anyone else had any reasons why they could not sit in judgement in this case. I raised my hand and said, "I believe in the decriminalization of drugs and feel the war on drugs harms this country." I was dismissed. They asked if anyone else had a problem with sitting for a drug case, and about a dozen others raised their hands. They still had enough to seat a jury, but I knew the defense attorney and months later I ran into her and she said she got an acquittal :-)

[rasputin1952]

7. Jury Nullification is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the legal system...

I sat on a jury and we argued the merits of the case. We went over everything, from probable cause to illegal search and seizure, it was an experience, and I am alwyas proud to sit on a jury.

We had a couple that thought if the kid was busted, he "he had to be guilty". This was eradicated almost immediately though when we discussed what a "crime" was.

We deliberated for quite some time, (everyone who may sit on a jury should watch 12w Angry Men ). To make a long story short, we had one individual who was convinced that pot moved people on to "harder" drugs, and therefore "had" to be dealt with severely. I asked this man if he had ever driven, accidentally, through a Stop sign, he said yes, I stated that was a "crime" and the possibility existed he could have killed someone. I then asked if he ever drove through a Stop sign again, he said no, he learned his lesson even though there was no citation involved. I stated that his first "offense" did not turn him into a hardened speeder, or careless driver, so his argument was a fallacy.

We went into the the court room and found the defendant not guilty, (which ticked off the judge and DA). We were polled, each of us stating "not guilty". About 2 months later, a law was passed here in Nebraska, decriminalizing up to an ounce of pot, no jail time, $100 fine max. It was a minor victory, but I'm glad to know that we made an impact.

If you ever get to talk to a judge outside of the courtroom, ask about Jury Nullification, it drives them nuts...:evilgrin:

[Zoeisright]

8. I had jury duty in the '90s. I'll never forget how differently people acted when they

were questioned in the jury box. The things they talked about outside the courtroom, and the statements they made were totally different under sworn testimony. I can only surmise that they were lying under oath.

[provis99]

9. Jury nullification is ILLEGAL. Most people don't realize this.

If you openly admit that you voted not guilty just to fuck with the law, you can go to jail.

[grasswire]

12. better do some reading up, friend n/t

[era veteran]

13. I have only been called to jury duty once, pretty much

every case on the docket was for a drug crime, weed mostly. The judge lectured us about this and that but made a direct point of telling us that even if we didn't agree with the law we had to follow it with our verdict. I wanted to say something to the judge but figured that that might be a mistake. I thought that the judge had maybe overstepped, at least it felt like it. Any law people know where all this stands? I was excused from duty when the questions : do you know, employ, or are you related to anyone that had been prosecuted for drug crime. I was able to answer yes to all three. Couldn't see how they could seat a jury.
I believe in jury nullification.

[bemildred]

15. Jury nullification is perfectly legal, what is illegal is talking about it.

And even there it is debateable. Nevertheless, one ought never have anything at all to say about it while serving on a jury or present in a courtroom, you will get in big trouble.

[grasswire]

11. the citizen's last defense against tyranny

Fully Informed Jury Association has been battling for this for decades now.

www.fija.org

[Citizen Worker]

14. Jury nullification was used extensively in the acquittal of Union organizers and activists in the

early 20th century. Defense attorneys would incorporate the jury's right to nullification in their closing arguments and jury instructions. It was legal then and it's legal now. However, corporations did not like the power of the jury and managed to convince numerous courts to prohibit defense attorneys from raising the issue and nullification died a quiet death. I'm waiting for my chance at nullification.

[grasswire]

19. the Fully Informed Jury Association...

...has many brochures that can be printed out, plus organizing plans for activism, legal cases, all kinds of resources for those who seek to work for this aspect of justice and law.


www.fija.org

[voteearlyvoteoften]

16. K&R!

[Macoy]

20. I Love JN

I love jury nullification and believe it is one of our bulwarks against unjust Government. Judges and prosecutors hate jury nullification with a fiery passion for the same reason.

JN allows the common people to inject justice in to the Justice system. Is stealing wrong??? You bet, send the guy to jail……O, he stole food to feed his kids? Not guilty. And it is my right as a Citizen to nullify what would otherwise be a crime.

I can also see JN used for long term social changes. Tired of fighting to get pot legalized? Get all your friends to use jury nullification to let pot smokers go free. DA’s love to brag about their conviction rate, how



Just don't bring any of the pamlets mentioned about to the courthose, you will never make it on a jury if they see you know, and approve of jury nullification. lol


Macoy

[COLGATE4]

21. Jury nullification is in essence nothing more than an individual (or

group of individuals) attempting to decide what the law on a given matter is according to their own beliefs, convictions, emotions and prejudices. It serves no legitimate purpose. In addition, there has to be a distinction made between what is being called Jury Nullification when a potential juror is subjected to voir dire - the juror indicates that s/he does not agree with the law in question and is excused from jury duty. This is not jury nullification. Jury nullification is when members of a jury desregard the oath they swore upon being empaneled as a juror to follow the law as it is, not as how they think is should be. This is destructive to the impartial administration of justice and does no one any good. The proper forum for changing a law people do not agree with is through the legislative process, not through the shoot from the hip, feel good "I won't convict him/her because I don't think the law is right".