Monday, April 25, 2011

Guerilla Jurors

Citizens in our (once) free republic founded under the English common law system, have both the power and the right to vote according to conscience when they sit on a jury and can vote not guilty even in the face of the law and in the face of the evidence. The defendant also has a right to expect that his jury will be fully informed of their rightful power to vote “not guilty” if they believe justice requires it, regardless of the evidence. Anything less is not a real jury trial. [More]

I've been ordered to appear for jury duty in July.  It'll be interesting to see how far I can go in explaining my position to the judge without getting a contempt citation.

Unfortunately, I have a public enough record on jury nullification that I can't just keep quiet about it if asked a direct question.

7 comments:

W W Woodward said...

They probably won't mention nullification. Judges and lawyers don't want the term mentioned in "their" courtrooms.

[W3]

David Codrea said...

Don't know how it works in OH--this will be my first jury service here. My experience on juries in CA is the judge instructed us our job was to judge the facts and he would define the law, and asked if anyone had a problem with that. I distinctly remember that from two separate trials. Also, I didn't get past voir dire on one case where they asked us if any of us had beliefs one way or the other on the gun issue or belonged to any groups..."Where to begin?" I began...:)

Anonymous said...

Each time I ask the judge to explain the jury's right and duty to find as to law as well as to fact I'm dismissed immediately.

Jury nullification discussion will not be tolerated in the courtroom. Maybe you can get the guy from FL (?) to hand out flyers outside the courthouse door where prospective jurors file in.

Please do not try to 'explain' to the judge...get a competent shyster.

jon said...

"the judge instructed us our job was to judge the facts and he would define the law"

if those were their exact words, then no, you shouldn't speak up. the judge defines precisely the law -- and when you vote not guilty in the face of all the facts you've nullifed that well-defined law. there will be no ambiguity about it either way.

if they see that as undesireable, too bad. their mistake in not asking you the right questions during voir dire. you only have to disclose the existence of your prejudices according to the registration card or sheet, not explain them. if they ask you to tell them what nullification is you can just direct them to the case law or the FIJA website. say you have no personal belief about it, it's just the law, and so long as you're in a court, you'll follow it.

Unknown said...

"Voir Dire" is French for 'jury tampering'. :)

IMHO, you should try to get on that jury. Resign from all memberships in all organizations (for now). Wear a suit. Dress nice. Smile. "Let your 'Yes' be your 'Yes' and your 'No' be your 'No'. All else is from the evil one." Then get on the jury and vote your conscience.

Anonymous said...

I'm doing the same, putting up with the coercion of the "summons" to participate in an important check on tyranny.

The last few go 'rounds have seemed surprisingly light on the French jury tampering, and I suspect the courtroom officials and I disagree ever so slightly on what the precise definition of "law" is (see Norton vs Shelby County and related opinion in Marbury vs Madison).

Ed said...

The best response that I heard during voir dire of a jury pool was a potential juror giving his position on whether he could follow the judge's instructions when applying the law. The potential juror stated that he was raised a Christian and followed the admonition of "judge not, lest ye not be judged" (Matthew 7:1) and questioned the judge's chosen line of work. The potential juror stated outright that he would not convict anyone for anything at anytime.

Dismissed.

Interestingly, the case involved whether a convicted felon that was dealing drugs at 2 AM in a bar parking lot in a very poor neighborhood had the right to wield a sawed-off shotgun and kill a customer that explicitly threatened in front of several witnesses the dealer's life because of the low quality of the purchased merchandise - first degree murder. The jury pool was told that the death penalty would not be sought. Unfortunately, I was also dismissed at the request of the defense attorney when I expressed no reservations at all in my ability to weigh the facts and render a judgement after hearing the judge's instructions. Damn. I was too enthusiastic with my answer. Little did that attorney know that I thought that his scumbag client had the same civil rights that the attorney and I had and would argue the same in the jury room.