Uechi-Ryu.com

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2001 12:11 am**

Jury nullification got O.J. Simpson acquitted. Yet, it can sometimes protect defendents from bad laws. Should jurors be told that they have the option to ignore the law when deliberating on a verdict? This may not be a "tough issue" (if not, this thread should die a quick and natural death), but I am curious about others' opinions on the subject.

Yosselle

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2001 2:42 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Yosselle:
Jury nullification got O.J. Simpson acquitted. Yet, it can sometimes protect defendents from bad laws. Should jurors be told that they have the option to ignore the law when deliberating on a verdict?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I notice this is your first post and you are a new member of the forums. So, welcome and thanks for chosing this forum to jump in.

Now, about this jury nullification stuff...

Seems like the question is: Does the good that arises from a jury's ability to judge the law as well as the specific incident outweigh the potential bad that may come about if juries were to misuse that Right?

Perhaps you should explain to the folks what the historical roots of "jury nullification" are and what the term actually means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

This may not be a "tough issue" (if not, this thread should die a quick and natural death), but I am curious about others' opinions on the subject.

I suspect that given the varied backgrounds and political beliefs of the people here that this has the potential of being a rather hot subject... Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2001 3:13 pm**

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a judge properly removed a juror who did not think the charges were crimes. What crime was that, you ask? Statutory rape. This was the first court case in California dealing with jury nullification.

What is the precedent in other jurisdictions? What have courts in other states ruled?

OJ was acquited because the cops were "reckless" (the judge's own words)collecting evidence, the time line didn't fit and a lead investigator was a racist whose testimony could not be believed. It didn't help the prosocution either when Dr. Lee-a foremost expert on forensic blood and DNA evidence who whose testimony convicted scores of peole and is personally unimpeachable- gave testimony and his analysis of the blood and DNA, and then turned to the jury and referred to the prosocutions evidence by saying, "something's wrong".

What laws would you nullify?

Gene

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2001 7:50 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a judge properly removed a juror who did not think the charges were crimes. What crime was that, you ask? Statutory rape. This was the first court case in California dealing with jury nullification.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you agree with the removal of the juror? Rape is a very serious crime. However, perhaps the juror was right in this case. Without details of the case, I cannot judge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>]Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: What is the precedent in other jurisdictions? What have courts in other states ruled?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in disgregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113,1139(1972)

and

"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 passions, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002,1006(1969)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

]Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: OJ was acquited because the cops were "reckless" (the judge's own words)collecting evidence, the time line didn't fit and a lead investigator was a racist whose testimony could not be believed. It didn't help the prosocution either when Dr. Lee-a foremost expert on forensic blood and DNA evidence who whose testimony convicted scores of peole and is personally unimpeachable- gave testimony and his analysis of the blood and DNA, and then turned to the jury and referred to the prosocutions evidence by saying, "something's wrong".

Do you believe that O.J. killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

]Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: What laws would you nullify?

Let's start with the drug laws.

------------------
Yosselle
- Magic is practice -

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2001 8:02 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Yosselle:

Let's start with the drug laws.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then move to the gun laws.

And that's just a start!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

- Magic is practice -

Interesting concept. I like it...

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 11, 2001).]

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2001 8:14 pm**

"Do you believe that O.J. killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?"

I believe he got a fair trial and the jury heard tesimony and saw evidence and heard all the arguments and came to the right verdict.

Has the SCOTUS ever weighed in on jury nullifacation?

As for me (who does not want to get into an argument or even a high test discussion)...

We have elected law making bodies whose job is to make laws. Don't like a law? Write your Congressman and Senators, both state and federal, or do those other things we can do in a free, representative republic. If the law is unjust, then the impartial judges will determine that. To say citizens have the right themselves, unilaterally, to declare a law invalid and unenforcable is tanatmount (in my non-argumentative opinion) to vitual anarchy.

Gene

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2001 9:24 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Yoselle:
"Do you believe that O.J. killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:
I believe he got a fair trial and the jury heard tesimony and saw evidence and heard all the arguments and came to the right verdict.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn't answer my question

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:
Has the SCOTUS ever weighed in on jury nullifacation?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Sparf & Hanson v. U.S. The Supreme Court confirmed the right of juries to judge to law itself, but ruled that it was not a reversable error for trial judges to fail to inform juries of that fact. Since then, courts have taken that decision as a license to forbid anyone to so inform them, even to punishing attorneys and defendants for contempt of court who try to do so in court, to prosecuting members of the public for "jury tampering" who try to do it outside of court.

So, is this thead "jury tampering"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:
As for me (who does not want to get into an argument or even a high test discussion)...

We have elected law making bodies whose job is to make laws. Don't like a law? Write your Congressman and Senators, both state and federal, or do those other things we can do in a free, representative republic. If the law is unjust, then the impartial judges will determine that. To say citizens have the right themselves, unilaterally, to declare a law invalid and unenforcable is tanatmount (in my non-argumentative opinion) to vitual anarchy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. I'll continue without you

"Don't like a law? Write your congressman..."? Is that how slavery was ended? In the 1850's northern jurors refused to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. If a law is really bad, don't you think the People have a right to nullify it by refusing to convict "offenders"?

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it
infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then
it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the
violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone

------------------
Yosselle - Magic is practice
50 Years of Progess: 1943-1993 - Warsaw to Waco

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2001 3:39 am**

What is to prevent someone with a perverse agenda from nullifying laws only he/she views as offending, but others (say a majority) don't? Now, of course there are some laudable and sometimes necessary agendas that the nation has wrestled with. Slavery and race relations being biggies. The Northerners who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, we all agree, did noble deeds. But, what of the proverbial racist who nullifies the Voting Rights Act? I'm sure we can think of some other concrete examples that we would be disgusted at if a jury acquits of a law we all deem necessary.

Just look at Panther's and Yosselle's posting. Yoselle wants to attack the anti-drug laws. Panther then wants to attack gun-control laws (among others, I;m sure : ) ). Assuming those examples don't bug me too much (the drug one does a bit, but that's for another story), how do we stop someone or some group from attacking necessary laws??

Gene

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2001 7:37 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:

What is to prevent someone with a perverse agenda from nullifying laws only he/she views as offending, but others (say a majority) don't?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy one... The jurors are randomly chosen and besides, how many times have you been called for jury duty? (In Massachusetts, you can only be called once per year and that's if you don't happen to serve, once every three years if you do serve on an actual jury) Given the infrequency of being called for jury duty (not even counting actually getting on a jury), the chances of a perverse juror being called has the same chances of being called as anyone else... add to that the low numbers of such radical candidates to begin with and it becomes a non-issue.

A single case of jury nullification wouldn't be enough to erase a law, however several probably would. There are a few things to keep in mind at the same time: 1) A juror has no duty to tell anyone why they are voting "not guilty", 2) All it takes for an acquittal (contrary to popularly held myth) is a single vote of "not guilty" by a single juror.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The Northerners who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, we all agree, did noble deeds. But, what of the proverbial racist who nullifies the Voting Rights Act?

As just pointed out, the chances of that happening is slim. Then again, using a 12 person jury, the math is rather fascinating. (It's actually counter intuitive...)

Going by the 1 in 12 (our jury system) it would take 9% of the population disagreeing with a law and nullifying it... think about that for a minute... if 9% of the population thinks a law is unjust, incorrect and unnecessary, then we shouldn't have that law. (Given the current popular media statements that 10% of the population is "gay", then it would stand to reason that 1 "gay" person will be on any jury... and therefore, through jury nullification, should be able to prevent any heinous anti-gay laws.)

Back to the acquittals of the Fugitive Slave Act... How could these acquittals have possibly happened, if the judges had asked every potential juror in advance whether he was willing to send the person to prison for breaking that law and summarily dismissing anyone who admitted he would have a problem casting such a vote in the jury room? (Voir Dire) The answer, of course, is that there was no such questioning! Juries at that time (as intended by the Founders) were just a random cross-section of the populace, not screened or sifted through for their political views at all... and certainly not told at the end of the trial that they must convict based on the facts to whether the defendant broke the law as written. (which is common practice today.) Only about 25% of Northerners were abolitionists... but that 25% in every jury pool insured that every jury contained at least 2-3 Abloitionists... making the prosecutions for breaking the Fugitive Slave Law hopeless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I'm sure we can think of some other concrete examples that we would be disgusted at if a jury acquits of a law we all deem necessary.

Then obviously we all didn't deem that law as correct, just or necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

(among others, I;m sure ).

You betcha. How about Massachusett's "sex" laws. (In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, oral sex, sodomy or even just the woman being on top are illegal offenses for which prison is part of the punishment!

... If you have ever run afoul of one of these laws, you could be sentenced to MCI! If charged and tried under one of these archaic statutes, wouldn't you want the jury to nullify the law?) More later...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Assuming those examples don't bug me too much (the drug one does a bit, but that's for another story), how do we stop someone or some group from attacking necessary laws??

It comes down to what each person deems as a "necessary" law.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2001 2:22 pm**

Just an FYI... I think that statistically speaking my math is off on the probabilities of someone getting on a jury of 12 based on the percent of the general population having the same beliefs. That's the much more interesting calculation, but Monday morning just isn't the time for me to try and figure that one out...

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2001 4:17 pm**

Sorry to jump in so late. I have read this topic for the first time. I think it is provoking and leads to many threads, but I think we have to get back to the basics.

1. The jury is the ulitmate finder of facts in a criminal jury trial.

2. The judge can only instruct the jury as to the law in the case and can explain or clarify the law after the charge (instruction) to the jury.

3. The jury makes its findings collective as a single unit; a juror can be expelled or excused for just cause.

4. The judge cannot order a new trial if he does not like a not guilty verdict.

5. However, if the defense brings a motion before the court, before the jury verdict, at such time as the procedural state statute permits, to dismiss the case or direct a verdict because the state, as a matter of law, had not met its burden of proof, the judge can take the case away form the jury and rule.

6. If the defense thinks that the conduct of a juror or the expulsion of a juror prejudices the case or for that matter the prosecutor, can make a motion for a mistrial.

7. Although the O.J. case represents to most, an example of jury injustice, by the same token it is a great example of the safe-guard to your right to be tried by a jury of your fellow citizens, and if the finding is bizzare, and an acquital is made so what.
Would you want a luke warm system to have the state aginst you with its arsenal of wealth, have the ability to appeal a criminal capital punishment case for little reason other than it did not like the outcome?

Remember that if the judge feels that the prosecution has not met its obligation of proving the basic elements of the crime or crimes, a ruling to this effect can be made by the judge.

If conduct of a particular juror results in dismissal and the public feels that its TV viewing (such as in the OJ) trial nullifies the effect or the jury by eliminating an important prosecution juror so what.

Ths system ain't perfect and it's expensive and time consuming. It is also under constant attack. Rid the jury system in simple motor vehicle prosections! OK, then reduce it 6 man/woman juries.

Well we have pre-trial conference and copped pleas to take care of a large number of cases, but if we compromise the jury system, what have we got to replace it. We got it from England. What, it has been greatly amended and reduced in Great Britain?
You mean they disarm more than firearms?

If you have a better system please forward the same to the American Bar Association.

Just remember:

Alan K

------------------
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2001 6:34 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alan K:

1. The jury is the ulitmate finder of facts in a criminal jury trial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what we've been told, but... Juries are the arbitors of justice. They decide what is just, right and fair. They also have not only the right, but the duty to judge the law in question based on whether it is just, right, and fair. (Remember William Penn)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

2. The judge can only instruct the jury as to the law in the case and can explain or clarify the law after the charge (instruction) to the jury.

Then why were juries actually instructed by judges about jury nullification as recently as 80 years ago? Sorry, that is a recent (within the last 70 years or so) change that was made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

3. The jury makes its findings collective as a single unit; a juror can be expelled or excused for just cause.

It takes a unanimous jury to convict... However, it only takes a single dissenting juror to acquit. Contrary to the popular misconceptions presented by some. While the decision may come from a "single collective unit", the decision need only be unanimous to find the defendant guilty, not for an acquittal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

4. The judge cannot order a new trial if he does not like a not guilty verdict.

Oops... Guess there are some in the "justice" system that haven't quite grasped the concept of "double jeopardy" yet...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

5. However, if the defense brings a motion before the court, before the jury verdict, at such time as the procedural state statute permits, to dismiss the case or direct a verdict because the state, as a matter of law, had not met its burden of proof, the judge can take the case away form the jury and rule.

Pretty darn rare occurance...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

6. If the defense thinks that the conduct of a juror or the expulsion of a juror prejudices the case or for that matter the prosecutor, can make a motion for a mistrial.

A motion which is usually denied when made by the defense...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Would you want a luke warm system to have the state aginst you with its arsenal of wealth, have the ability to appeal a criminal capital punishment case for little reason other than it did not like the outcome?

Double Jeopardy protection... you still believe in that? Even when the court doesn't get the desired outcome, they just change jurisdictions... but that's not "double jeopardy", the person was acquited under the State prosecution and this trial is under the Federal statues...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ths system ain't perfect and it's expensive and time consuming. It is also under constant attack. Rid the jury system in simple motor vehicle prosections! OK, then reduce it 6 man/woman juries.

Well we have pre-trial conference and copped pleas to take care of a large number of cases, but if we compromise the jury system, what have we got to replace it. We got it from England. What, it has been greatly amended and reduced in Great Britain?
You mean they disarm more than firearms?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a reason the Founders settled on a jury of twelve.

(This is predicated on the original intention that there shouldn't be "voir dire" as we currently have... that it should be a jury of your peers. This is the math I hadn't done correctly previously.

)

With a 12 person jury, given the premise that a certain percentage of the population will disagree with most laws, if 1% of the population disagrees with a law, then there is an 11% chance of someone with that belief being on the jury. Taking that further, if 10% of the population disagrees with a law, then there is a 71% probability of having a juror that disagrees with the law... and by the time 18% of the population disagee, then there's a 90% chance that the jury will have at least one that disagrees. (As the Founders well understood.) And going further, when 25% of the population disagrees with an onerous law, then there's nearly a 97% chance that the jury will have at least one person that feels the same way. Increasing the likelihood of both acquittal and jury nullification! This was part of the checks and balances that the Founders envisioned would prevent the people from becoming enslaved by onerous laws.

But let's look at reducing the jury to 6 people... In that case, to have the 90% probability of a juror disagreeing with the law, a third of the population would have to disagree. And to reach that 97% level, nearly 45% of the population would have to disagree with the law! And at the 1% level (of population disagreement with a law), then there is only a 5% chance of a juror also disagreeing with that law.

No, we should not reduce our jury trial rights.

And even though Rights are inalienable, coming from your Creator, not granted by government (meaning that every human has Rights, whether U.S. citizen or not), the British have agreed that they aren't citizens... they are subjects and under their form of government, they have no Rights! We certainly don't want to follow their lead. In fact, our fore-fathers fought a war so that we wouldn't have to follow their lead!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If you have a better system please forward the same to the American Bar Association.

Like the American Bar Association would do something useful with it...

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2001 9:41 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...back to the basics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll start with this basic:

"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
-- Albert Einstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 1. The jury is the ulitmate finder of facts in a criminal jury trial.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the ultimate finder of law. 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.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d
1113, 1139 (1972))

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".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 2. The judge can only instruct the jury as to the law in the case and can explain or clarify
the law after the charge (instruction) to the jury.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Untrue. The judge technically has the option of informing jurors of their right to judge the law,
but this has not been done since Sparf & Hanson v. US in 1895. In that decision, the Supreme Court
of the U.S. ruled that judges were no longer required to inform jurors of this right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 3. The jury makes its findings collective as a single unit; a juror can be expelled or
excused for just cause.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all it, it only takes one "not quilty" to aquit. If excercising one's right as a juror to
acquit in spite of the law is "just cause", then it is truly incumbent upon the people to
excercise this right very discreetly. Never discuss your reasoning with the other jurors.
Lie to the court when asked if you know anything about jury nullification or if you have
any opinion about the laws in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 4. The judge cannot order a new trial if he does not like a not guilty verdict.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 5. However, if the defense brings a motion before the court, before the jury verdict, at
such time as the procedural state statute permits, to dismiss the case or direct a verdict because
the state, as a matter of law, had not met its burden of proof, the judge can take the case away
form the jury and rule.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite the guarantee of the sixth Amendment? See how far we've come? And people accept this? I
would rather trust my fate to a fully informed jury than to an unsworn employee of the State.
Anybody giving lessons in "pro se" representation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 7. Although the O.J. case represents to most, an example of jury injustice, by the same
token it is a great example of the safe-guard to your right to be tried by a jury of your fellow
citizens, and if the finding is bizzare, and an acquital is made so what. Would you want a luke
warm system to have the state aginst you with its arsenal of wealth, have the ability to appeal a
criminal capital punishment case for little reason other than it did not like the outcome?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you bring up the State appealing anything? In any case, it would be outrageous,
but it does happen (see Emerson v. US). Not usually to specific individuals, but very bad laws are
repeatedly applied to the populace by an out-of-control government. That is why supremacy of the
Jury over the law is necessary. Regardless of how many times people are tried for violating
tyrannical laws, the accused would be acquited, thus nullifying the bad law and keep tyranny
in its bottle.

Perhaps legislators who voted for laws that are subsequently nullified a sufficient number of times should
be automatically removed from office. That would provide a strong incentive that only
sensible laws would be passed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Remember that if the judge feels that the prosecution has not met its obligation of proving
the basic elements of the crime or crimes, a ruling to this effect can be made by the judge.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the State doesn't have its **** together enough to prosecute a case properly, they don't
deserve a second chance. The jury can find someone guilty despite the law (or evidence) as
well as not quilty. Let the impartial jury decide.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ths system ain't perfect and it's expensive and time consuming. It is also under constant
attack. Rid the jury system in simple motor vehicle prosections!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a better idea. Get rid of the simple motor vehicle codes. Get rid of licensing,
registration and auto excise taxes. If it's too damned inconvenient for the government to
extort money from us because jury trials are expensive, well too bad. Prosecution of the
People by the government is supposed to be inconvenient.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>OK, then reduce it 6 man/woman juries.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, why make it easier for tyranny to grow? Why not 3 people on a jury? Oh, hell,
why bother with juries at all for ANY cases? They're expensive and time consuming. Judges
would do a much more efficient job. And besides, think how much more money the government
could collect and how fast the government could grow then. Woohoo!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well we have pre-trial conference and copped pleas to take care of a large number of cases,
but if we compromise the jury system, what have we got to replace it. We got it from England.
What, it has been greatly amended and reduced in Great Britain? You mean they disarm more than
firearms?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Repeal all the unconstitional laws and the case loads would drop by 95%. No copped pleas
needed anymore. Plenty of time for jury trials. Besides, if the unconstitional laws
were repealed, there would be very few "crimes against the State". 99% of all
cases would be civil cases between individuals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you have a better system please forward the same to the American Bar Association.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do. The ABA should start a public, multi-million dollar campaign to
inform the public of their rights and obligation to judge the law whenever
they are empaneled on a jury. They should explain that this is the best way
to ensure peace and freedom for their posterity.

But that would be like asking Larry Flint to promote abstinence.

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 21, 2001).]

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 2:58 pm**

Yosselle,

Those are some great cites! I tried to look up one of them, but couldn't seem to find it. Could you provide a source or perhaps a book that has this information listed in it?

I agree that the Government's appeal of a ruling by one of their own is outrageous. (Re: the Emerson case out of Texas) If a Judge has the 'nads to hand down a decision that hinders the Government's control in any real way, they just appeal the ruling! Absurd.

While I was pointing out that reducing juries to 6 citizens from 12 would effectively reduce the chances of getting a sympathetic ear by a large percentage, you've actually "cut to the chase" by pointing out that any reduction (which has already occurred, also as you point out) is just another incremental step down the yellow-brick road of tyranny. Thanks for getting right to the point! I couldn't agree more.

You've also got me thinking about another statement and responses...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If you have a better system please forward the same to the American Bar Association.

Why should we give any suggestions to a private association (the ABA) regarding our public criminal justice system? Shouldn't we be taking our suggestions to our duly elected officials? When did the ABA get such power? And why the he!l do they have that much power?

IOW, to me, the thought of suggesting that we send our thoughts/suggestions to the ABA (after I've put some thought into the concept) is rather disheartening and disgusting to me!

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 22, 2001).]

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 6:45 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther:
Could you provide a source or perhaps a book that has this information listed in it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I admit that I didn't get these quotes (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) and the John Jay quote) from primary sources (or even my local law library), but I'm confident that they are substantially correct. If every "cite" needed to be certified and notarized to qualify as authoritative, then not many things would get proven. Nevertheless, I do hope to look them up at the library sometime. In the meantime, go to http://www.fija.org for more info.

Yosselle
-- 50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

Uechi-Ryu.com

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification