Time: Tue Mar 04 15:52:37 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15311;
	Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:03:30 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:37:31 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: [jus-dare] More from "The Boston Tea Party"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<snip>
>Subject: JURY NULLIFICATION 
>
>JURY NULLIFICATION 
>
>  Each person on a Jury has the power to vote NOT GUILTY in any 
>criminal case even if it is obvious the Defendant broke the law 
>(Penal Code). This tremendous power permits you, as a Juror, to 
>NULLIFY or NEUTRALIZE a law which is in your opinion "BAD". You 
>may exercise this Power despite the Evidence presented or the 
>Judge's Instructions to you. No Judge will ever instruct you, 
>however, that you have this Power to NULLIFY a bad law by voting NOT
>GUILTY.  This is because legal tradition assumes that each Juror knows
>of this Power but should not be told of it as it is not a Right. Did
>you know ?! 
>
>
>THE "POWER" EXISTS 
>
>"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. On this, and on every other occasion,
>however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to
>the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed,
>that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand,
>presumable, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both
>objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." [Charge to the
>Jury by the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, in
>Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794). This Jury Instruction
>occurred in a civil (not criminal) case]. 
>
>"'The verdict, therefore, stands conclusive and unquestionable, in
>point both of law and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it
>may be said that the jury have a power and a legal right to pass upon
>both the law and the fact.'" [Chief Justice Shaw (state) quoted in
>Sparf v. U.S., 156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)]. 
>
>"The judge cannot direct [DEMAND] a verdict it is true [FROM THE
>JURY], and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth
>of both law and facts." [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes in Horning
>v. District of Columbia, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)]. 
>
>" 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 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 passion, the jury has the power to
>acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." [U.S. Appellate
>Court in U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); cert denied in
>397 US 910]. 
>
>" The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury,
>to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the
>trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and
>precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to
>follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were
>different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our
>Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at
>that time from respected sources -- John Adams; Alexander Hamilton;
>prominent judges -- that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according
>to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the
>court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both
>of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of
>the court." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113,
>Pg.1132 (1972)]. 
>
>
>BUT DON'T TELL THE JURY !! 
>
>"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is 
>alteration in the way it is told to operate.  The jury knows well
>enough that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated
>in the formal instructions of the court. [...] Law is a system, and it
>is also a language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet
>are part of its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the
>request for jury nullification doctrine [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION
>GIVEN TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE] is a recognition that there are
>times when logic is not the only or even best guide to sound conduct
>of government. [...] The fact that there is widespread existence of
>the jury's prerogative [NULLIFICATION], and approval of its existence
>as a 'necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary
>prosecutors,' does not establish as an imperative that the jury must
>be informed by the judge of that power." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S.
>v. Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-1136 (1972)]. 
>
>
>CONCLUSION 
>
>In any criminal case each Juror can vote NOT GUILTY honestly and
>without fear of reprisal by anyone. The Jury, in any criminal case,
>acts as the 4th and Supreme Branch of Government, without whose
>approval One of its Own, One of the "People", may not be punished. 
>
>
>SUGGESTION 
>
>If someone is Proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to have Willfully or
>Intentionally Hurt or Destroyed Someone or their Property -- vote
>"GUILTY". Remember, however, each Accused Person is Innocent Until
>Proven Guilty. However, if the Accused has Hurt No One or their
>Property or has done so Only by Accident -- vote NOT GUILTY if you
>think the law is a "BAD" law. 
>
>In this way "We the People" will be telling our Government that we
>will support prosecutions in which a Member of our Community has been
>Deliberately Hurt or Wronged but that we will Not Permit Prosecutions
>based on "BAD" laws. Prosecutors will Not Bring Prosecutions they know
>local Jurys will Not Support. Remember, it takes Only One Juror to
>make a "HUNG JURY". Be aware that Prosecutors, to improve their
>chances of scoring a win, will likely "Disqualify" you for Jury Duty
>if they learn you have Knowledge of JURY NULLIFICATION (handy if you
>Want to get Disqualified). Finally, Prosecutors may Prosecute You for
>Jury Tampering if they learn later you Intended to NULLIFY before
>hearing the Charges or the Evidence. So, if you decide to NULLIFY a
>"BAD" law and vote "NOT GUILTY", fine, but keep your reasons for
>voting NOT GUILTY to yourself! 
>
>Please pass this information on JURY NULLIFICATION along to your
>Friends and Neighbors.  Get on those Jurys. Love your Country -- but
>Keep your Government in Check! 
>
>
>     Boston Tea Party - Next Generation can be e-mailed (if supported)
>     at: 
>boston@slip.net. 
>
>Misc. Info re this Page. 
>   URL address . . "http://www.slip.net/~boston/". 
>   Last Updated . . 02-29-96. 
>
>Copyright ¬ 1995-1997 by Boston Tea Party - Next Generation - All
>rights reserved.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              *JUS DARE*
>                   c/o Dave Delany's Freedom House
>                    PO Box 212  Conklin  NY  13748
>                               ========
>      Sponsored by Mike Goldman and By.Net (http://Names.By.Net)
>                               ========
>                 Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court
>            *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law."
>
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe to *Jus Dare*, send a message to
>                   jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net
>       In the BODY, put the text "ADD" or "DELETE" respectively.
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail