Jury Duty

[floralheart]

I've been called in for jury duty. If it's a murder, rape or theft trial I will play fair. If it's a drug case involving marijuana, I'm going to force a hung jury. If it involves something I view as unamerican (a law, a tactic, anything really), I'm going to force a hung jury.

Every been called in for jury duty?

 

[Citizens Aux PD]

Every been called in for jury duty?

Yep.
I wrote to them and told them Satan told me not to do it. I checked the box that I could not afford time off work to do it.
They sent me a form asking for a breakdown of my finances. I filled it out and sent it back. They said I still had to attend jury duty unless my boss filled out a form declaring that the company doesn't pay jury duty time off. My boss filled it out and I got off the hook.

At the time I worked swingshift, 4m - midnight. I would usually go to bed at 5:am. Jury duty would've meant getting up at 7:am to make it to court by 8:30 or 9. It would've meant facing 6 lanes of morning rush hour traffic on the 280 South on just 2 hours of sleep.

Fuck all that shit with a dead porcupine.

 

[ydijadoit]

I want no part of the corrupt, paid off, bullshit court system. It should be called the "Private prison, and law enforcement funding system"
I get jury summons by regular mail. I don't reply. Send it registered mail, or I will deny receiving it.
Regards

 

[gaiusmarius]

i downloaded this jury duty hand book, here are the first 2 pages, it's all about nullification. the judge will lie and say it's not true, but that's part of the game they play, so you have to pretend you know nothing about jury nullification while they are interviewing you to select the jury. then if you feel the case is unjust start informing the jury during the deliberations about nullification. it's actually not allowed for the lawyer or the defendant to mention nullification in any way, so it all depends on an informed citizen being in the jury who has the balls and the knowledge not to be bullied or scared into voting guilty when it's for growing for example or any other unjust law. down load the whole 14 pages as it will equip you to deal with the situation much better then just the first 2 pages i posted. the link to the site is bellow, once on the site just down load the Jurors handbook pdf.

http://fija.org/

check this out, first 2 pages from the jurors handbook from the
Fully Informed Jury Association.

1 of 14
Jurors' Handbook
A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty
Mr. Duane is an associate professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia

Did you know that you qualify for another, much more
powerful vote than the one which you cast on election
day? This opportunity comes when you are selected for
jury duty, a position of honor for over 700 years.
The principle of a Common Law Jury or Trial by the
Country was first established on June 15, 1215 at
Runnymede, England when King John signed the
Magna Carta, or Great Charter of our Liberties. It
created the basis for our Constitutional, system of
Justice.
JURY POWER in the system of checks
and balances:
In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there
is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the
President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial
jury protected under our Constitution has more power
than all these government officials. This is because it
has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature"
that may come to be called "laws".
In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our
Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named
John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel
against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of
the Colony of New York forbid any publication without
prior government approval. Freedom of the press was
not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however,
defied this censorship and published articles strongly
critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger
admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued
that the truth of the facts stated justified their
publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is
not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel
more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow
true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And
since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of
publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the
jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.
That is the power of the jury at work; the power to
decide the issues of law under which the defendant is
charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks
and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's
last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny.
A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties:
But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under
our Constitution?
It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was
written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a
group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and
the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February
term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial
in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford1. The
instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the
Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true
power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best
judges of law. But still both objects are within your
power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a
right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both,
and to determine the law as well as the fact in
controversy".
So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a
sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And
they are there with the power to review the "law" as well
as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct
the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the
safety of all parties involved.
As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge....2
Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Maryland: "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

1
(3 Dall 1)
2
US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)
2 of 14
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 of passion, the jury has the
power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that
decision."3
YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the
purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your
Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your
single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law
involved in that case. Because a jury's guilty decision
must be unanimous, it takes only one vote to effectively
nullify a bad "act of the legislature". Your one vote can
"hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal, at
least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an
unjust or unconstitutional law.
The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty",
without your consent!
If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case
being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon
the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional
rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really
no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime; for
no man is bound to obey an unjust command. In other
words, if the defendant has disobeyed some man-made
criminal statute, and the statute is unjust, the defendant
has in substance, committed no crime. Jurors, having
ruled then on the justice of the law involved and finding
it opposed in whole or in part to their own natural
concept of what is basically right, are bound to hold for
the acquittal of said defendant.
It is your responsibility to insist that your vote of not
guilty be respected by all other members of the jury. For
you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the
majority, but as a qualified judge in your right to see that
justice is done. Regardless of the pressures or abuse
that may be applied to you by any or all members of the
jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree,
you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the
knowledge you have voted your conscience and
convictions, not those of someone else.
So you see, as a juror, you are one of a panel of twelve
judges with the responsibility of protecting all innocent
Americans from unjust laws.
Jurors Must Know Their Rights:

3
US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)
You must know your rights! Because, once selected for
jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge
both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the
jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs
Dougherty4: "The fact that there is widespread
existence of the jury's prerogative, 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".
Look at that quote again. the court ruled jurors have the
right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told
about it. It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty
decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision
that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US5, the court
ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a
judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be
made aware of the right to do so.
Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on
the surface? It may be, but the logic behind such a
decision is plain enough.
In our Constitutional Republic, note I did not say
democracy, the people have granted certain limited
powers to government, preserving and retaining their
God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the
juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should
know what their rights are. They need not be told by the
courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters
of the public servants. Should a servant have to tell a
master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our
responsibility to know what our rights are!
The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is
absurd and contrary to historical fact and law. Are juries
present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical
acts of the government? We The People wrote the
supreme law of the land, the Constitution, to "secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Who
better to decide the fairness of the laws, or whether the
laws conform to the Constitution?
Our Defense - Jury Power:
Sometime in the future, you may be called upon to sit in
judgment of a sincere individual being prosecuted
(persecuted?) for trying to exercise his or her Rights, or
trying to defend the Constitution. If so, remember that in
1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and
signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The
jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts".
And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together,
or we most assuredly will all hang separately".

4
(cited earlier)
5
(156 US 51)

 

[Pinball Wizard]

I forced a hung jury at a small time coke procession trial.

Ten years later; I was kicked off jury selection before I even sat down.
(they must keep records of that happening?)(small hick town)

Local old ladies love jury duty! They bake cookies & pies for the judge, prosecutors and jurors.

Convictions guaranteed.

 

[floralheart]

i downloaded this jury duty hand book, here are the first 2 pages, it's all about nullification. the judge will lie and say it's not true, but that's part of the game they play, so you have to pretend you know nothing about jury nullification while they are interviewing you to select the jury. then if you feel the case is unjust start informing the jury during the deliberations about nullification. it's actually not allowed for the lawyer or the defendant to mention nullification in any way, so it...

Thanks for the tips. I've got about a month to read up. I should change my name to Nicholas Easter (Runaway Jury).

 

[floralheart]

I forced a hung jury at a small time coke procession trial.

Ten years later; I was kicked off jury selection before I even sat down.
(they must keep records of that happening?)(small hick town)

Local old ladies love jury duty! They bake cookies & pies for the judge, prosecutors and jurors.

Convictions guaranteed.

My girlfriend liked it. She did a murder trial between an 80 year old couple. Years ago. The old lady shot her husband for some senseless reason. I think that was 4 years ago.

 

[Stoner4Life]

I called my county when I got the notice & informed them of the severe arthritis in my spine, automatic out.......

 

[WelderDan]

Yeah, a Civil Real Estate case. I expected that I wouldn't get picked, but damned if both sides didn't agree on me first during jury selection.

I actually wanted to experience how the system works, since I've only been to Traffic court.

My biggest problem was the other jurors. People are fucking stupid. First instruction from the judge was no discussing the case until both sides had presented their case and we were sent into deliberation. First thing they did on lunch break was discuss the case. Idiots.

I sure hope I never have to be tried and judged by a group of morons like this. Now I understand how someone is "too stupid to get out of jury duty." You'll get to see what I mean if you get chosen.

I did my civil duty, and I got to experience the system. If I'm ever called again, I'm getting out of it any way I can. I'm going to claim prior bias. Whatever it takes.

Oh, and after a week of boring ass testimony regarding access to some lake front property, the judge declares a mistrial. Apparently we were shown some evidence we weren't supposed to see. Too bad too. The Plaintiff was a dumbass with a crappy attorney and the Defendant had a team of about 4 or 5 really sharp attorneys that were consistently handing this guy his ass. I forget the name of the firm, but I'd let them represent me anytime.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

I just throw them away.

 

[floralheart]

I just throw them away.

My grandmother did that. I'd like to participate. I'd also like to exercise my power as a citizen and resident to do what I feel is right. I'd like the shot at activism for all the things we say are bullshit. Time to put my money where my mouth is.

I can easily get out of this for a number of reasons. Work and family health related responsibilities. But I think it's cool to get involved.

I don't want to give up 6 months of my life. But I do want to participate.

 

[Slip Kid]

They always pick me. I've been on 3 juries and I was pleasantly surprised at how the old women/men felt about the police. Two of the cases were for drug possession/open container one was a civil case. I do live in the most liberal state but still I thought the guy with the heroin in his pocket and a beer in his hand at 2am would be found guilty for sure. The old ladies especially did not trust the police at all and felt they had no cause to pull him over to start with and let him fly. Sleazy looking dude too!!
I think from what I've seen you have to be pretty bad to be given a cell in my state.The other case was for coke possession, roughly an oz of the stuff but same thing, nobody believed the cops about having probable cause to pull him over to begin with. Somebody has to serve on the juries, you can't cry about a screwed up system if you simply allow the old timers to take care of it but I'm no judge and I know a long case can screw up your life. The civil case went 2 weeks and sucked big time.

 

[Holdin']

The plus side of being a felon (due to cannabis laws FTR...) - no jury duty!

Kind of funny side note: my mom was called upon for jury duty while I was serving out my sentence, and due to the case having something to do with some kid selling a bit of herb, mom was easily dismissed after she explained her bias of her son currently sitting in prison over grossly unjust laws. My mom is a more professional sort of woman, doesn't even smoke, and barely supports what I do. But for this, she made her son proud.

Go Mom.

 

[paladin420]

I'll cut my hair and shave for jury duty. I will exercise my right as a free thinking American.
Fuck the system.

 

[Capt.Ahab]

Around these parts they will issue a warrant for your arrest if you do not appear when called for jury duty. If you go and do the song and dance , they will give you a three year exemption .
Ive been called three times over the years but never had to actually sit on a jury.
They dont like my attitude, apparently.

 

[BlueBlazer]

 

[Skinny Leaf]

I served on an armed robbery case that took a week. We spent three days deliberating because the attorneys sucked ass. We ended up finding him guilty. A couple of the women on the jury were crying when we found him guilty. The judge came in after the verdict and informed us this was the guys third time of being convicted of armed robbery. Third time is the charm and gets him a lifetime residence at the iron bar hotel.

 

[Tudo]

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, I've been excused from jury duty for the foreseeable future because of my health. Frankly I wish my health was better!

That said, before I was excused I sat in the courtroom with the other jurors waiting for instructions and had I been given a pure drug case I would have stated "Innocent" .

I especially like the letter Blueblazer

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

View Image

View Image

love it

 

[gaiusmarius]

considering that you might be able to save a fellow growers life from becoming a living hell seems reason enough not to try and get out of it, but to try and get past their screening so you can actually get in to the jury and judge the whole situation knowing that you do not have to say guilty, even if the judge says so, if you feel that yes he is a grower, but growing is no big deal and even a human right, then you can just say not guilty. no matter what the evidence against him, as jury nullification gives you the power to judge the justice of the law being used as well as the facts of the case. no explanation is needed, just not guilty. of course explaining your position to the jury during jury deliberation is best so you can try get others to follow suit. but even if you alone declare not guilty, you will save him from prison. this is something that really needs to be spread far and wide. if the whole population realized this power, the gov would no longer be able to enforce unjust rules, as they'd know that no jury will convict. people are actually being told by fed. judges, that they are only to judge the facts, that the law is beyond their authority. when it's a total lie.