133 lines
7.3 KiB
Plaintext
133 lines
7.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
JURY NULLIFICATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
EACH PERSON ON A JURY HAS THE POWER TO VOTE "NOT GUILTY" IN ANY
|
|
CRIMINAL CASE EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUS THE DEFENDANT BROKE THE LAW (PENAL
|
|
CODE). THIS TREMENDOUS "POWER" PERMITS YOU, AS A JUROR, TO "NULLIFY" OR
|
|
"NEUTRALIZE" A LAW WHICH IS IN YOUR OPINION "BAD". YOU MAY EXERCISE THIS
|
|
POWER DESPITE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. NO
|
|
JUDGE WILL EVER INSTRUCT YOU, HOWEVER, THAT YOU HAVE THIS POWER TO NULLIFY
|
|
A BAD LAW BY VOTING "NOT GUILTY"--LEGAL TRADITION ASSUMES THAT EACH JUROR
|
|
KNOWS OF THIS POWER BUT SHOULD NOT BE TOLD OF IT AS IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
|
|
|
|
THE "POWER" EXISTS
|
|
|
|
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old
|
|
rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on
|
|
questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be
|
|
observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
|
|
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon
|
|
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact
|
|
in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no
|
|
doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court:
|
|
For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of
|
|
facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best
|
|
judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of
|
|
decision." [CHARGE TO THE JURY BY THE 1ST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME
|
|
COURT, JOHN JAY, IN GEORGIA v. BRAILSFORD, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794). THIS JURY
|
|
INSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN A CIVIL (NOT CRIMINAL) CASE].
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
"'The verdict, therefore, stands conclusive and unquestionable, in
|
|
point both of law and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it may
|
|
be said that the jury have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the
|
|
law and the fact.'" [CHIEF JUSTICE SHAW (STATE) QUOTED IN SPARF v. U.S.,
|
|
156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)].
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
"The judge cannot direct [DEMAND] a verdict it is true [FROM THE
|
|
JURY], and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of
|
|
both law and facts." [U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HOLMES IN HORNING v.
|
|
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)].
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for
|
|
approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in
|
|
America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually
|
|
asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law. We
|
|
recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit,
|
|
even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and
|
|
contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we
|
|
adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot
|
|
search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If
|
|
the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust,
|
|
or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for
|
|
any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power
|
|
to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." [U.S. APPELLATE
|
|
COURT IN U.S. v. MOYLAN, 417 F2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); CERT DENIED IN 397
|
|
US 910].
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
"The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury,
|
|
to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
|
|
judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent
|
|
upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 1 OF 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different
|
|
soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware
|
|
of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected
|
|
sources--John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges--that jurors had
|
|
a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in
|
|
opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a
|
|
right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case,
|
|
and not bound by the opinion of the court." [U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN U.S.
|
|
v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1132 (1972)].
|
|
|
|
BUT DON'T TELL THE JURY
|
|
|
|
"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is
|
|
alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough
|
|
that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the
|
|
formal instructions of the court. [...] Law is a system, and it is also a
|
|
language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of
|
|
its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury
|
|
nullification doctrine [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY BY
|
|
THE TRIAL JUDGE] is a recognition that there are times when logic is not
|
|
the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. [...] The fact
|
|
that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative
|
|
[NULLIFICATION], and approval of its existence as a 'necessary counter to
|
|
case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,' does not establish as an
|
|
imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power."
|
|
[U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN UNITED STATES v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-
|
|
1136 (1972)].
|
|
|
|
CONCLUSION
|
|
|
|
IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE EACH JUROR CAN VOTE "NOT GUILTY" HONESTLY AND
|
|
WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL BY ANYONE. THE JURY, IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, ACTS AS
|
|
THE 4TH AND SUPREME BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT WHOSE APPROVAL ONE OF ITS
|
|
OWN, ONE OF THE "PEOPLE", MAY NOT BE PUNISHED.
|
|
|
|
SUGGESTION
|
|
|
|
IF SOMEONE IS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO HAVE WILFULLY OR
|
|
INTENTIONALLY HURT OR DESTROYED SOMEONE OR THEIR PROPERTY--VOTE "GUILTY".
|
|
REMEMBER, HOWEVER, EACH ACCUSED PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
|
|
|
|
BUT, IF THE ACCUSED HAS HURT NO ONE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR HAS DONE SO
|
|
ONLY BY ACCIDENT--VOTE "NOT GUILTY" IF YOU THINK THE LAW IS A BAD LAW.
|
|
|
|
IN THIS WAY "WE THE PEOPLE" WILL BE TELLING OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WE
|
|
WILL SUPPORT PROSECUTIONS IN WHICH A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN
|
|
DELIBERATELY HURT OR WRONGED BUT THAT WE WILL NOT PERMIT PROSECUTIONS BASED
|
|
ON BAD LAWS. PROSECUTORS WILL NOT BRING PROSECUTIONS THEY KNOW LOCAL JURYS
|
|
WILL NOT SUPPORT. REMEMBER, IT TAKES ONLY ONE JUROR TO MAKE A "HUNG JURY".
|
|
BE AWARE THAT PROSECUTORS, TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SCORING A WIN, WILL
|
|
LIKELY "DISQUALIFY" YOU FOR JURY DUTY IF THEY LEARN YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF
|
|
JURY NULLIFICATION. PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO YOUR FRIENDS AND
|
|
NEIGHBORS. GET ON THOSE JURYS. LOVE YOUR COUNTRY--BUT KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT
|
|
IN CHECK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 2 OF 2
|
|
|
|
|