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

[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.

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

Yes, I addressed it above. Go read it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution does not directly say who has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court simply granted itself that power which means they really don't have it. But the tenth amendment says any power not granted the federal govt is retained by the states OR THE PEOPLE. That's why citizens have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional - they don't have to be a juror.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Your opinion is not fact and not very logical.

Jury Nullification in America has generally but a social ill and purveyor of injustice, particularly in the South, where the accused were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

TK, you can be on the side of the Klan and all that, but I won't.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If juries do start declaring laws unconstitutional, what can the govt do to stop them.? Nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Your opinion is not fact as all of my cites above show.

Your try that in a court of your state and you will be held in contempt.

End of story.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.

And I contend that such stipulation is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to search case law to prove my point, all you have to do is google it.

What have I been doing for the past hour and a half? Pouring over case law. Moreover, no, I would not think an attorney can order the jury to render a desired verdict based on his interpretation of the law. All he has to do is simply remind the jury that they have the power to nullify the law in doing so. In fact both sides should be allowed to do so. This is to avoid an objection from the one or the other.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Jury Nullification in America has generally but a social ill and purveyor of injustice, particularly in the South, where the accused were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

HAHAHA. You don't know what jury nullification is.

 

[Yurt]

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.

Your opinion is not fact as all of my cites above show.

Your try that in a court of your state and you will be held in contempt.

End of story.

and now fakey is saying that an attorney saying jury nullification is not legal, will land him or her in contempt....when just earlier....jakey said jury nullification was not legal

WTF?

why does anyone on this board give him any respect?

 

[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!!!

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.

I said

jury nullification is not a valid defense.

you said:

attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification.

WTF...you are delusional. Anyone else (of sane mind)...am I wrong here?

 

[Yurt]

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

huh?

 

[Yurt]

Jury Nullification is not legal.

but then jake declares that you will be held in contempt if you say this in court

seriously

how does anyone take this tool for anything but a troll

 

[Nutz]

LOL, I think Yurt and Jake have some sort of secret relationship going on!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Your opinion is not fact as all of my cites above show.

Your try that in a court of your state and you will be held in contempt.

End of story.

Nope, my state allows for jury nullification. Shows how little you know of the law.

Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph XI, Sub-paragraph (a) of the Georgia Constitution:

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgement without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; AND THE JURY SHALL BE THE JUDGES OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS.

Have a seat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I said

jury nullification is not a valid defense.

you said:

attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification.

WTF...you are delusional. Anyone else (of sane mind)...am I wrong here?

And you are cherry picking my posts. You lose. Try reading it in context.

 

[Nutz]

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.

I said you said:

attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification.

WTF...you are delusional. Anyone else (of sane mind)...am I wrong here?

And you are cherry picking my posts. You lose. Try reading it in context.

LOL...wtf, are you drunk. We both agree, jury nullification is not a valid defense, but a jury is free to decide whatever they want.

Show me where I said otherwise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I said you said: WTF...you are delusional. Anyone else (of sane mind)...am I wrong here?

And you are cherry picking my posts. You lose. Try reading it in context.

LOL...wtf, are you drunk. We both agree, jury nullification is not a valid defense, but a jury is free to decide whatever they want.

Show me where I said otherwise.

I disagree with you on the former, and agree with you on the latter. It isn't valid insomuch as an Attorney cannot make demands of a jury, I have never wavered on that opinion. But for him to simply be barred from informing the jury of that right is unconstitutional. No, he cannot incorporate it as a defense, but he should be allowed to apprise the jury that they can lawfully abrogate the law itself and any of the facts and evidence if they so see it fit. You misunderstood my argument from the very beginning.

Get it now?

 

[Nutz]

And you are cherry picking my posts. You lose. Try reading it in context.

LOL...wtf, are you drunk. We both agree, jury nullification is not a valid defense, but a jury is free to decide whatever they want.

Show me where I said otherwise.

I disagree with you on the former, and agree with you on the latter. It isn't valid insomuch as an Attorney cannot make demands of a jury. But for him to simply be barred from informing the jury of that right is unconstitutional.

Get it now?

Sure...but the fact of the matter is that we were stating fact and you are throwing opinion in there. The fact is that a lawyer cannot argue jury nullification as a defense in a court of law. I didn't throw any opinion in there...you are arguing with yourself and creating an argument against someone who isn't arguing with you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL...wtf, are you drunk. We both agree, jury nullification is not a valid defense, but a jury is free to decide whatever they want.

Show me where I said otherwise.

I disagree with you on the former, and agree with you on the latter. It isn't valid insomuch as an Attorney cannot make demands of a jury. But for him to simply be barred from informing the jury of that right is unconstitutional.

Get it now?

Sure...but the fact of the matter is that we were stating fact and you are throwing opinion in there. The fact is that a lawyer cannot argue jury nullification as a defense in a court of law. I didn't throw any opinion in there...you are arguing with yourself and creating an argument against someone who isn't arguing with you.

And that is a dodge. Your facts are rendered moot, or wrong, when confronted with other refutatory facts.

 

[Nutz]

No, it is not. What am I dodging. We agree, a defense attorney cannot use jury nullification as a defense but jurors can decide however the please. What am I dodging, your inability to admit that we both agree on the facts?

Sheesh, pass the blunt.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The difference is, Nutz, I didn't simply argue with an opinion. I made an opinion based on the facts, which as I see them condone the use of jury nullification, and say that it is unconstitutional to disallow the apprisal of a jury of their constitutional right to nullification by the prosecution or the defense.