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