You, Citizen Have the Constitutional Power to Decide which Laws are Unconstitutional.

[TemplarKormac]

Tsk, tsk, Jake my friend. Perhaps you are unaware but our founders saw Jury Nullification favorably, it lead Alexander Hamilton to pen Federalist No. 83, or the legal opinions of Judge John Jay.

In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

In Georgia vs Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (1794) another author of the the Federalist Papers, Judge John Jay instructed a jury:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

That is before the Sparf decision. As I can tell, Jury nullification wasn't and still isn't illegal, it was arbitrarily phased out of the court system by subsequent court rulings.

However, in 2012, New Hampshire resurrected that practice, and has solid legal precedent to do so:

243:1 of HB 146 - Findings and Intent of the General Court. Under the decisions of both the New Hampshire supreme court and the United States Supreme Court, the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The jury system functions at its best when it is fully informed of the jury’s prerogatives. The general court wishes to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence, while preserving the rights of a criminal defendant, as enumerated in part 1, articles 15 and 20, New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

In US v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969), the courts recognized jury nullification in a limited manner. In U.S. v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (1988) the court did so again. In U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (1997), they stated that while a juror can be removed for misconduct and contempt, a juror could not be removed simply for not agreeing with the argument made by the Government.

"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law.

...

"We recognize, as applellants 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."
U.S. v Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969)

"...there can be no doubt that the jury has an `unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge....'"
U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

Kaboom.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Jake, this is what happens when you gloat. You get slapped down. Hard.

Did you even read the article? ONE state passed a law allowing jury nullification, and it is vague at that.
ote]

This is definitely a step forward for advocates of jury trial. Allowing counsel to speak directly to the jury about this subject is something that is not allowed in all the courthouses outside of New Hampshire...As noted above, if the attorney’s argument is “too strenuous,” the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the law as described by the court, not the defense.

No, it isn't. I study law. You don't. Jury nullification is clear. Whether you like it or not.

 

[Nutz]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As for my opinion of juries, I feel it my duty to play my role in rendering justice. I also feel like anyone should have a trial by jury. But I also feel that the jury has a right to weigh the law and the facts, and nullify the law if it is being applied improperly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ka-Boom

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Jake, this is what happens when you gloat. You get slapped down. Hard.

And will do so all the way to it being declared unconstitutional.

Body of law is overwhelmingly against it son.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

 

[JakeStarkey]

typical of you; not a shred of civic duty, Yurt

So many millions of us served so you can shirk your jury duty as you do every thing else, I am sure

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Jake, this is what happens when you gloat. You get slapped down. Hard.

And will do so all the way to it being declared unconstitutional.

Body of law is overwhelmingly against it son.

Actually not. See my post. I cited 200+ years of legal precedent contradicting yours. Under due process precedent, the defendant, plaintiff or appellee can be robbed of their due process rights if the jury is not duly instructed on jury nullification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

Horse crap, bud. Judges are responsible for the law, juries for the facts. The judge decides if the law is improperly applied, not the jury.

TK, that is like consensus articles on science: mice trying to lead the cat on a leash.

 

[Nutz]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

If a law is being inappropriately applied, any lawyer - good or bad - would have the case dismissed. You are being obtuse...I'm not wondering anything. I KNOW that jury nullification is NOT a valid defense for an officer of the court. As for a judge being contradicted...why would a judge care, he is not deciding a verdict in a JURY trial, the JURY is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

Horse crap, bud. Judges are responsible for the law, juries for the facts. The judge decides if the law is improperly applied, not the jury.

TK, that is like consensus articles on science: mice trying to lead the cat on a leash.

Perhaps you aren't reading:

Tsk, tsk, Jake my friend. Perhaps you are unaware but our founders saw Jury Nullification favorably, it lead Alexander Hamilton to pen Federalist No. 83, or the legal opinions of Judge John Jay.

In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

In Georgia vs Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (1794) another author of the the Federalist Papers, Judge John Jay instructed a jury:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

That is before the Sparf decision. As I can tell, Jury nullification wasn't and still isn't illegal, it was arbitrarily phased out of the court system by subsequent court rulings.

However, in 2012, New Hampshire resurrected that practice, and has solid legal precedent to do so:

In US v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969), the courts recognized jury nullification in a limited manner. In U.S. v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (1988) the court did so again. In U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (1997), they stated that while a juror can be removed for misconduct and contempt, a juror could not be removed simply for not agreeing with the argument made by the Government.

"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law.

...

"We recognize, as applellants 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."
U.S. v Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969)

"...there can be no doubt that the jury has an `unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge....'"
U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

Kaboom.

Now please read this before proceeding further. I know you ignored this post, so I will keep quoting it until you address it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can't speak for Jake, but my point is that jury nullification is not a valid defense in a court of law. Of course a jury can put forth any verdict they choose, but an officer of the court cannot argue that a defendant is 'innocent' because the law is unjust.

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

If a law is being inappropriately applied, any lawyer - good or bad - would have the case dismissed. You are being obtuse...I'm not wondering anything. I KNOW that jury nullification is NOT a valid defense for an officer of the court. As for a judge being contradicted...why would a judge care, he is not deciding a verdict in a JURY trial, the JURY is.

Yet you cite no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tsk, tsk, Jake my friend. Perhaps you are unaware but our founders saw Jury Nullification favorably, it lead Alexander Hamilton to pen Federalist No. 83, or the legal opinions of Judge John Jay.

In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

In Georgia vs Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (1794) another author of the the Federalist Papers, Judge John Jay instructed a jury:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

That is before the Sparf decision. As I can tell, Jury nullification wasn't and still isn't illegal, it was arbitrarily phased out of the court system by subsequent court rulings.

However, in 2012, New Hampshire resurrected that practice, and has solid legal precedent to do so:

In US v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969), the courts recognized jury nullification in a limited manner. In U.S. v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (1988) the court did so again. In U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (1997), they stated that while a juror can be removed for misconduct and contempt, a juror could not be removed simply for not agreeing with the argument made by the Government.

"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law.

...

"We recognize, as applellants 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."
U.S. v Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969)

"...there can be no doubt that the jury has an `unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge....'"
U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

Kaboom.

TK, the judge is the determinant of the law, the jury of the facts. That will not change.

This is what will happen in NH. One, judges will instruct the juries that regardless of what the defense attorney may say that he the trial judge is the determiner of the law and that the juries will follow his instructions on the law. Two, the NH Supreme Court already made a ruling about this in 1994 and will rule on the latest law. Guess what?

Now, TK, you can with your entry level paralegal training try to act pompous, but you are merely worth grins and giggles.

Tis what tis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet you cite no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

And your cites do not apply to the question of nullification at large. Either the judges will give it the wink wink and tell the juries what to do in terms of the law, or the NH supreme court will throw it out, or SCOTUS will do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tsk, tsk, Jake my friend. Perhaps you are unaware but our founders saw Jury Nullification favorably, it lead Alexander Hamilton to pen Federalist No. 83, or the legal opinions of Judge John Jay.

In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

In Georgia vs Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 (1794) another author of the the Federalist Papers, Judge John Jay instructed a jury:

That is before the Sparf decision. As I can tell, Jury nullification wasn't and still isn't illegal, it was arbitrarily phased out of the court system by subsequent court rulings.

However, in 2012, New Hampshire resurrected that practice, and has solid legal precedent to do so:

In US v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969), the courts recognized jury nullification in a limited manner. In U.S. v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (1988) the court did so again. In U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (1997), they stated that while a juror can be removed for misconduct and contempt, a juror could not be removed simply for not agreeing with the argument made by the Government.

"...there can be no doubt that the jury has an `unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge....'"
U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

Kaboom.

TK, the judge is the determinant of the law, the jury of the facts. That will not change.

This is what will happen in NH. One, judges will instruct the juries that regardless of what the defense attorney may say that he the trial judge is the determiner of the law and that the juries will follow his instructions on the law. Two, the NH Supreme Court already made a ruling about this in 1994 and will rule on the latest law. Guess what?

Now, TK, you can with your entry level paralegal training try to act pompous, but you are merely worth grins and giggles.

Tis what tis.

Your assertions are not the facts. You spun the very cases I used against you.

If the jury isn't allowed form an opinion based on the facts and evidence, or disagree with the facts and evidence, you are robbing someone having their day in court of their due process rights. Its as simple as that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet you cite no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

And your cites do not apply to the question of nullification at large. Either the judges will give it the wink wink and tell the juries what to do in terms of the law, or the NH supreme court will throw it out, or SCOTUS will do so.

The Supreme Court has been very reluctant to address this issue. They know exactly what the Founders thought of jury nullification.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And before we go any further, juries can still nullify, attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification. That prohibition, as I see it, violates due process law. If the jury cannot be fully informed of their rights under the law, a person having their day in court is being robbed of their constitutional rights. Not to mention that the jury has their 1st Amendment rights violated as well. They are not being informed and are thus being barred of their right to redress grievances with their government, which I feel falls right in line with jury nullification.

 

[Nutz]

What you fail to understand is that if a law is being improperly applied in the court of law, you are robbing the accused or the appellant of their due process rights. This is a perfect microcosm of the system of checks and balances. If the jury thinks the law is being misapplied, they have a right to overrule a judge based on proper application. And you wonder why jury nullification is 'not a valid legal defense?' Judges hate being contradicted, dissent must be quashed and their verdicts must be absolute.

Believe it or not, juries have more rights than they realize.

If a law is being inappropriately applied, any lawyer - good or bad - would have the case dismissed. You are being obtuse...I'm not wondering anything. I KNOW that jury nullification is NOT a valid defense for an officer of the court. As for a judge being contradicted...why would a judge care, he is not deciding a verdict in a JURY trial, the JURY is.

Yet you cite no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

You are failing to comprehend what I am sharing with you. I am not saying that jury nullification cannot exist...I am saying that an officer of the court cannot use jury nullification as a defense. I'm not going to search case law to prove my point, all you have to do is google it...and you will find that a defense lawyer can't tell a jury to find the defendant not guilty because the law is wrong. AND, if you read the entire thread, you will see where I quoted from another person's post the same thing. NH is the only state where lawyers...to a degree...can use jury nullification as a defense.

 

[Nutz]

And before we go any further, juries can still nullify, attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification. That prohibition as I see it violates due process law. If the jury cannot be fully informed of their rights under the law, a person having their day in court is being robbed of their constitutional rights.

LMAO...that is exactly what I was saying. Jury nullification is not a valid defense!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And before we go any further, juries can still nullify, attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification. That prohibition as I see it violates due process law. If the jury cannot be fully informed of their rights under the law, a person having their day in court is being robbed of their constitutional rights.

LMAO...that is exactly what I was saying. Jury nullification is not a valid defense!!!

LMFAO, you read it wrong.

By saying an attorney cannot inform a jury of nullification, you are saying, "You must rule on my interpretation of the law only." However, the Founders disagreed. The jury has just as much right to rule on the law and the facts as the judge does.

End of story.