Your right as a jurer to aquit for any reason, or no reason

It's of the utmost importance everyone know exactly what their rights are as a future jurer. And here they are:

As a jurer, your one single vote will let someone off, and you have no duty and can never be asked to give a reason for your verdict, and should never give one if asked.

As a jurer you are momentarily ABOVE the law because you are there to judge the law, and everyone in that courtroom including the judge is your servant.

As a jurer, you have the duty to judge the guilt of the person AND judge the law they are accused of. Most people have been conditioned to believe that even if they disagree with the law that the defendant is accused of breaking that they must find the defendant guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth, even though every judge in America will tell you otherwise. If you disagree with the law, you have a DUTY to find the defendant not guilty, and your single vote will set him or her free.

To learn exactly what every judge will deny, and no defense attorney is allowed to tell you I highly suggest everyone read this, and store it for future use:

http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf

Or simply watch this video (or both!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVGPPD8xPbU

Or especially one of these old videos featuring Ron Paul, before he was famous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdse8zBzyI&feature=related
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbw8rF_hA9I&feature=related

I was in a jury selection process recently. The judge was very careful to ask each potential juror if they could find the defendant guilty if the facts of the case proved that he was guilty of violating the law. The phrasing of the judge's question was very precise, and seemed to me to be designed to eliminate free thinkers like this from even being on a jury.

I would have gladly lied to the judge to get on a jury where this issue might be relevant, but I definitely would have had to lie to be accepted onto the jury.

Judges try to weed out anyone who knows about jury nullification.

They way I figure it, it has been challenged and determined that the judge can lie to you about your rights even if you ask him directly, so lying to him is perfectly acceptable.

From FIJA's website:
In extreme cases, this judicial hostility even extends to
dishonesty. As Chief Judge Bazelon correctly observed,
current law on this topic is tantamount to a "deliberate
lack of candor."37

In one especially outrageous case,
the jury deliberated for hours in a criminal tax case
before sending the judge a note asking: "What is jury
nullification?" The defendant was convicted shortly after
the judge falsely told the jury that "there is no such thing
as valid jury nullification," and that they would violate
their oath and the law if they did such a thing.38

Over a vigorous dissent, the Court of Appeals deemed the
instruction proper and affirmed the conviction39, even
after the defendant furnished the court with an affidavit
from a juror who swore he would have acquitted if "we
were told the truth about jury nullification."40
http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf

Click to expand...

I've seen conspiracy theorists make statements like - "read what the government doesn't want you to know"! But in this case, jury nullification of unjust laws is truly something he government does not want you to know, and a judge will jail a defense lawyer for contempt of court if they try to tell you during a trial.

Alcohol prohibition was defeated partly due to juries automatically aquitting anyone the government brought to trial, and it only takes 1 immovable juror out of 12.

Even people who do know in advance and get on a jury are intimidated into believing that their "Jurors Oath" is binding. It isn't. The jurors oath is an unenforcable hoax.

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. is quoted as saying, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” And courts have upheld the right of jury nullification since 1840. Regardless of what judges say or allow others to say, it is a legitimate part of our judicial system. And something every citizen should know about. Maybe MSNBC or one of those other networks that are doing shows on the business of marijuana should do one on the rights of jurors. Bet that would piss more (government) people off than speaking out against prohibition.

four boxes of freedom: soap, ballot, jury and ammo...do u guys think this would be a good thing for MPP to start pushing?

I'd never be a Jurer, I'd get down to my doctor and get off with it for some kind of medical reasons that I can think of, explosive diarrhea anyone?

Hey, careful with the explosive diarhea!

I think freedom-loving people should consider themselves fortunate to get on a jury, and have the chance so save some poor soul trapped in the evil judicial system.

Stumbled across this digging back, think its important enough to bump. US citizens should know about jury nullification.

Very interesting, thanks

You may think you hold the power but the judge can and will excuse you for any reason they like.

A juror being let go during deliberation for holding to nullification would open a heck of a door on appeal for the defendant, imho. But then there is that pesky problem of getting dismissed initially.

I'd take a contempt charge and fight it for the chance to nullify a mj case.


An interesting paper on the issue: http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/385.pdf

boroboro said:

Hey, careful with the explosive diarhea!

I think freedom-loving people should consider themselves fortunate to get on a jury, and have the chance so save some poor soul trapped in the evil judicial system.

Click to expand...

amen