Time: Mon Jun 16 13:56:23 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05262; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:44:53 -0700 (MST) by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA01346; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:44:36 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:43:10 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: JURY NULLIFICATION (fwd) <snip> > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >STEVE KUBBY CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS 16 JUNE, 1997 > > JURY NULLIFICATION > > >In a recent trial in Colorado, a juror was convicted of contempt of >court when she refused to convict a defendant of drug possession. The >juror, who felt the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond a >reasonable doubt, also felt that her conscience would not allow her to >subject the defendant to a lengthy prison sentence for simply possessing >a minuscule amount of white powder. > >Gubernatorial candidate Steve Kubby was shocked by the Colorado >decision. Kubby is fed up with bad laws, and vows that once elected, he >will require judges to fully inform jurors of their power to judge the >law itself; as well as the accused. "Judges won't like it, but I will >pardon anyone convicted by a jury which has not been fully informed of >all of its powers," says the indignant Kubby. > >Kubby is not alone. A growing number of people are speaking out in favor >of informing juries of all their powers. Jury nullification, or jury >"veto power," is the right of the jury to bring back a verdict of >acquittal, even if that verdict is contrary to the facts. It is the >right of jurors to use discretion. It is the right of juries to >"nullify" laws, in a particular instance, either because the jurors >believe the law itself is unjust, or because the jurors believe the >application of the law would be unjust. Jury nullification is the right >of jurors to evaluate the law, as well as the evidence, and to vote in a >way that will do justice, and not violate the juror's conscience, >regardless of the evidence. > >The jury, the cornerstone of the American justice system, is under >assault today like never before in our nation's history. The concepts of >"innocent until proven guilty" and "better ten guilty people go free, >than one innocent person go to prison," have been pushed into the >background as Americans, upset with what they perceive to be rising >crime, look for ways to provide security to themselves and their >families. The jury system was designed to protect citizens from >overzealous prosecutors, biased judges, oppressive government, and >unjust laws. Juries were designed to impart the conscience and >discretion of the community to the enforcement of laws. Just as a >police officer has discretion on whether or not to arrest somebody, a >prosecutor has discretion on whether or not to charge somebody, a judge >has discretion on whether or not to drop the charges against the >accused, so too were juries meant to have discretion on whether or not >to convict the accused. > >Jury nullification is more important today than ever before in our >nations history. Weak-kneed legislators, concerned only with being >reelected, have passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws in an effort to >appear "tough on crime" to their constituencies. Over-zealous >prosecutors use conspiracy laws intended for the prosecution of "crime >bosses," and extensive voir dire procedures aimed at empanelling "rubber >stamp conviction" juries, to obtain high conviction rates. Judges, >increasingly caught in the middle of the "tough on crime" debate, tend >to side with the prosecution, instead of working to maintain a fair and >impartial courtroom. Judge Fred Rodgers of Gilpin County, Colorado, >recently published an article in the Judge's Journal, instructing other >judges on ways to eliminate the free speech rights of citizens >attempting to inform prospective jurors about their constitutional power >to employ jury nullification. Caught up in the middle of all this is the >individual juror, who is increasingly being told that they must follow >the judges instructions to the jury, to the letter. If the jury is bound >to do exactly what the judge tells them they must do, why do we even >need a jury? If you buy into this concept, it is only a short step to >questioning the need for a judge. That prospect, a courtroom without a >fair and impartial judge, should send a chill down the spine of every >citizen who opposes the imposition of a "Police State". > >The United States Supreme Court has upheld, on numerous occasions, the >power of jurors to nullify existing laws, by voting for acquittal in the >face of evidence that would normally be sufficient for conviction. The >courts, while bound by these Supreme Court decisions, have elected not >to make this information on jury nullification available to jurors. >Thus, the dissemination of information on Jury Nullification falls to >citizen groups like the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) and other >civic-minded organizations. >-- >Arthur R Sobey >Communications Director >Kubby For Governor >sobeyit@wt.net > > > K U B B Y For G O V E R N O R > > 98 CALIFORNIA 98 > > email: kubby@alpworld.com > > Fax: 916 581-5641 > > http://www.alpworld.com/kubby98 > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail