Do You Know What [i]Jury Nullification[/i] Is? If Not, You Should!

[2aguy]

I am all for jury nullification. The Judges orders do not hold once the doors of the jury room close.

 

[2aguy]

There are hundreds of people in prisons because police and prosecutors decided 'they were the law and knew best'.

You can't leave these decisions to human beings. It has to be by evidence, not a gut feeling because gut feelings are often wrong.

Human beings are exactly who the founders wanted to be the ones deciding if the government proved their case..........

 

[2aguy]

A man in Michigan, Keith Wood, has been convicted of jury tampering for passing out brochures to prospective jurors near the entrance of a courthouse. The brochures contained information explaining the constitutional right of a jury to vote as their collective conscience dictates rather than what the Law demands. This right is in obvious fact the last ditch assertion of the rights of citizens over the dominance of government.

Sadly, only a small percentage of Americans are aware of their right as a juror to vote against convicting a defendant whose action they believe to be justified. The court system does everything in its power to deprive jurors of this awareness. It has gone so far to impose laws against informing jurors of their right to nullify a guilty verdict.

At the conclusion of a criminal trial and just before the jury retires to deliberate the judge issues a "charge" to the jurors in which he sternly informs them they are obliged to vote according to to the evidence presented and what the Law demands because of that evidence. This "charge" is bullshit. Each individual juror has the right to vote according to what his/her conscience (or whatever) dictates.

Hypothetical example: Jim's fifteen year-old daughter is turned onto drugs and into prostitution by 35 year-old Joe. Jim finds about it, goes hunting for Joe, finds him and beats him to death. Jim is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, a charge which is supported by irrefutable evidence -- weapon, fingerprints, blood-stains, eye-witnesses.

The facts are clear in this case. Jim had no legal right to do what he did and a forensic psychiatrist has testified that he was perfectly sane when he took it upon himself to stalk and murder Joe. According to the Judge's "charge" to the jury -- they must find in accordance with the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is bullshit.

The fact is at this stage in the trial the Judge is circumstantially reduced to the role of referee and the jury has become the judge. It will decide what happens to Jim. And if the jurors all decide that Jim does not deserve to be punished for ridding the world of a serpent like Joe and their verdict is, Not Guilty, that's the end of it. Jim will walk free -- and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's over. This is called Jury Nullification and it is perfectly legal.

So if you were a juror in Jim's trial, what would your verdict be?

WAs the daughter still alive? If so, then the death penalty would not apply....so I might have to convict.......

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yup, that was jury tampering.

Do you believe that informing prospective jurors of a critically important constitutional right is "tampering?"

Informing jurors of their rights is not tampering. But attempting to obscure awareness of an important right, which is what judges do during their "charge" to a jury, clearly and absolutely is deliberate and malicious tampering and it goes on all the time.

Please quote this right in the Constitution.

Article?

Clause?

Section?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Jury nullification can also be used to convict

It can be attempted but a Guilty verdict can be appealed. A Not Guilty verdict is final. Any attempt to re-try the acquitted is Double Jeopardy and is null and void.

Wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The economist Walter Williams was kicked off of jury duty because he informed the judge during jury selection that the verdict was the juries job.....and that once they were released to deliberate, they, not the judges orders were in charge.......the judge booted him....

Key word: economist

 

[Preacher]

Yes I know what it is and yes I absolutely 100% endorse it.

 

[Dale Smith]

MikeTx does not get that once a jury pool has been selected outside interference is against the law.

He can argue good or bad about it, but it is the law.

So figure a way to educate said jurors without getting caught.

The fellow in Michigan was handing out informational brochures to prospective jurors on a public street as they were approaching the entrance to a courthouse. The brochures made no reference to anything but the mechanics of Jury Nullification. They had nothing to to with any specific trial.

Well, try that with a judge, and tell us how that goes.

Jake, we don't have judges, we have administrators that operate under the U.C.C i.e "statutory law" which is admiralty"law". Don't you find it rather odd that all crimes are monetized? There is a reason for that and it all goes back to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. Don't you find it odd that we are still under the Lieber Code? So much you do not understand, Jake......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dale Smith once again pretends to know of what he talks; he does not.

Yet he daily comes here to prove that he does not.

Do you know what is jury nullification, Dale?

 

[my2¢]

So, are we saying the OJ jury was correct?

 

[LuckyDuck]

A man in Michigan, Keith Wood, has been convicted of jury tampering for passing out brochures to prospective jurors near the entrance of a courthouse. The brochures contained information explaining the constitutional right of a jury to vote as their collective conscience dictates rather than what the Law demands. This right is in obvious fact the last ditch assertion of the rights of citizens over the dominance of government.

Sadly, only a small percentage of Americans are aware of their right as a juror to vote against convicting a defendant whose action they believe to be justified. The court system does everything in its power to deprive jurors of this awareness. It has gone so far to impose laws against informing jurors of their right to nullify a guilty verdict.

At the conclusion of a criminal trial and just before the jury retires to deliberate the judge issues a "charge" to the jurors in which he sternly informs them they are obliged to vote according to to the evidence presented and what the Law demands because of that evidence. This "charge" is bullshit. Each individual juror has the right to vote according to what his/her conscience (or whatever) dictates.

Hypothetical example: Jim's fifteen year-old daughter is turned onto drugs and into prostitution by 35 year-old Joe. Jim finds about it, goes hunting for Joe, finds him and beats him to death. Jim is caught and charged with first degree premeditated murder, a charge which is supported by irrefutable evidence -- weapon, fingerprints, blood-stains, eye-witnesses.

The facts are clear in this case. Jim had no legal right to do what he did and a forensic psychiatrist has testified that he was perfectly sane when he took it upon himself to stalk and murder Joe. According to the Judge's "charge" to the jury -- they must find in accordance with the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is bullshit.

The fact is at this stage in the trial the Judge is circumstantially reduced to the role of referee and the jury has become the judge. It will decide what happens to Jim. And if the jurors all decide that Jim does not deserve to be punished for ridding the world of a serpent like Joe and their verdict is, Not Guilty, that's the end of it. Jim will walk free -- and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's over. This is called Jury Nullification and it is perfectly legal.

So if you were a juror in Jim's trial, what would your verdict be?

Jury Nullification: A juror or jurors deliberate vote of guilty, opposite the other jurors, so as to cause a "hung jury," thus forcing a new trial, which the District Attorney, may or may not pursue, depending upon mitigating circumstances.
The hypothetical case presented and the jury's unanimous decision of "not guilty" is just a unanimous jury decision, ignoring the evidence presented. If however, a judge truly believes that a jury's decision is completely wrong and without merit, based upon all the overwhelming evidence, he/she can actually overturn a jury's decision. Although extremely rare, it has been done in the past.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, are we saying the OJ jury was correct?

That was a nullification jury imo