Jury Nullification

[amannamedtruth]

Well, many of us have or will be called for jury duty. The circumstances may vary much, but regardless the situation, you as a juror have the right to stand against laws you deem unjust. Many jurors don't know about this right of a juror to be an activist, but once one in the room stands, the discussion begins, and more objective discussion regarding the case can often be a result. As a juror, I encourage you to never forget about the power you have to acquit.

The more we can let people know about this, the more citizenry can feel empowered during jury trials regarding cannabis to acquit the accused.

FIJA-Fully Informed Jury Association

Stay safe.

 

[GhettoInc]

Its true you really dont appreciate jurors till you get off on something.

 

[David762]

I absolutely 110% agree ...

I absolutely 110% agree ...

This is one way that any citizen can have a direct impact upon the enforcement of unjust laws. It only takes one juror to deadlock a jury, but there is always the possibility of converting other jurors to your way of thinking. Our side has logic and social justice, while their side only has "reefer madness" propaganda.

Well, many of us have or will be called for jury duty. The circumstances may vary much, but regardless the situation, you as a juror have the right to stand against laws you deem unjust. Many jurors don't know about this right of a juror to be an activist, but once one in the room stands, the discussion begins, and more objective discussion regarding the case can often be a result. As a juror, I encourage you to never forget about the power you have to acquit.

The more we can let people know about this, the more citizenry can feel empowered during jury trials regarding cannabis to acquit the accused.

FIJA-Fully Informed Jury Association

Stay safe.

 

[Preacher]

Right on. I previously got the link to FIJA in these very forums and it certainly enlightened me. We refer to people like the DA, prosecution attorneys and judges as public servants of the legal system, but who are their masters? The taxpaying public? Well in theory yes because we all have that potential but in reality it's the jury who are the masters of the judicial process. Of course nullification is something that'll get you booted out of jury duty in an instant if you so much as acknowledge it exists, the judge may well straight-up lie to the jury about their rights, and the defendant is completely buggered if he brings it up in court. But wouldn't you do the same if you were a servant? Knowledge is power, and it's in the best interest of the servant to do everything he can to make sure his masters do not know the full extent of their power over him.

Nullification is one of the few significant legal ways left in which an individual person can safely take a stand against his government, simply say "this is not right", and make a very important difference in the life of another human being. Hell, I find it amazing that this right still exists so many years after the Constitution has been twisted till it screams.

Personally, I've been called three times. For the first two I was too young and ignorant and I thought of it as a curse, like most people do, so I simply checked the box for student exemption. The third time I showed up at the right time and apparently the selection was canceled outright. Should there be a fourth time, I'll certainly do my part to try to make it into the jury and rule on morality, not legality.

 

[Strainhunter]

.



I previously posted the below in a similar thread:

Jurors certainly do have a POWER that has come to be known as “jury nullification.”

However, I do not agree that it is a “secret.” It is simply an inherent aspect of the jury system.

I’ll explain:


The jury system in America is set up in such a way that the judge and the jury have separate and distinct functions. It is the sole and exclusive right and duty of the jury to decide disputed issues of fact, based upon all of the evidence that is before it. There are always disputed issues of fact in any case that gets tried. If there were not, then there would be no need for a trial.

Again, it is the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND DUTY of the jury to decide/resolve these disputed issues of fact, and to thereby agree and conclude as to what the true facts of the case are. The judge provides the jury with the applicable law (known as “the law of the case”). According to the rules of the system, the jury is duty bound to accept the law and to apply it to the facts, thereby reaching the ultimate conclusion of “guilt” or “not guilty.” In theory, this is supposed to be a mechanical process, just as I have described it: apply the law to the facts. Like a machine. However, because a jury is comprised of human beings, and not machines, the jury does not HAVE to follow these rules of the system. If they don’t WANT to follow the rules, for whatever reason (let’s say that the jury thinks that to follow the rules in a particular case would lead to an unjust/immoral result), then they have the POWER to do as their conscience directs. Once their verdict is announced, the judge is virtually powerless to do anything about it. The jury does not have to answer to anyone. They do not have to explain their verdict, nor even talk about it.

Think about an analogy. A witness steps up to the stand and swears an oath, to tell the truth. Obviously, the integrity of the system is dependent upon witnesses testifying to the absolute truth. But what’s to stop a witness from lying? Sometimes nothing! In certain circumstances witnesses can lie with impunity (and they often times do!). But the point is, they have this POWER to lie. But they obviously do not have a RIGHT to lie.

REDEYE_420 you failed to carefully distinguish between RIGHT and POWER being one major criticism that I have with the article. In the first part of the article you rightly use the term POWER. However, notice how you then begin to use the term RIGHT.

A jury has no such RIGHT to engage in "jury nullification."

However, as I stated, they do have such a POWER, which simply happens to arise as an inherent part of their duty, because of the way that the jury system in set up.

In reality, any good criminal defense lawyer is well aware of the phenomenon of jury nullification, and of course we try to tap into it to the best of our ability. However, we cannot tell a jury that they have this POWER. On the other hand, the judge tells the jury what their DUTIES are, the most fundamental of which is:

“YOU MUST SWEAR TO APPLY THE LAW THAT I GIVE TO YOU. YOU ARE NOT FREE TO APPLY YOU OWN CONCEPT OF THE LAW, OR WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW OUGHT TO BE . . . “



Makes sense?

That's how it goes though.

SH

.