3 ms·

As John Adams said, “It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though

by miles 16y ago

As John Adams said, “It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” More recently, the following decisions have upheld jury nullification: The jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law." - U.S. vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) "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 of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." - U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) And finally, from two of America’s Founding Fathers: "... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts." - Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence See also: http://fija.org/ http://fija.org/ http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullifi...

gnosis 16y ago
"In reality, FIJA's origins and orientation are extremist, built (like most Patriot schemes) on long-rejected legal theories and dubious "facts." Now, there have been exceptional rulings in which jury nullification can be seen ipso facto as beneficial (particularly in some of the recent drug-war cases), and these cases are cited readily by FIJA adherents. However, these cases have no more force of law in modern courts than does the Dred Scot decision (though that ruling too is cited on more than a few occasions by FIJA adherents). That system is predicated upon the admonition that juries must rule on evidence and the law, pure and simple, and they take oaths to uphold that standard. Their failure to do so in fact breaks the law. The legal powers that nullification proponents would hand to juries violates the careful balance of powers that exists within the system. If juries are deciding the justness of the laws, they are assuming powers traditionally relegated to the judiciary and, in other contexts, to the legislative branch. There is nothing in any body of law that would allow them to do this, other than the pure absence of an outright prohibition -- which actually exists in the form of the jurors’ oaths. ... It is likely that the bulk of nullification proponents -- including, probably, Mark Paschall, though his notions about placing God's laws before man's are common among both Identity followers and Christian Reconstructionists -- have no idea whose agenda they’re being used for. But then, most people are oblivious to the elements in our society that would like to see it all fall apart, and are doing their damnedest to make it happen." http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/10/spreading-extremism.html http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/10/spreading-extremism.htm...
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  I don't know if that's more genetic fallacy or poisoning the well. Possibly both. "Their failure to do so in fact breaks the law." Well, no kidding. The whole idea behind jury nullification is to prevent people from going to jail because of unjust laws. Are we supposed to be surprised that the same system that has an unjust law makes it against the law to refuse to enforce an unjust law? Why not just make it against the law for juries to find proponents of jury nullification innocent? Jury nullification would not have that great of an effect, and it certainly wouldn't make society "fall apart". It would affect one trial by jury at a time. In each one you would have to convince 11 other people that a law was unjust, if just one was convinced of the law's correctness and the defendant's guilt, you'd have a hung jury.

by miles 16y ago

gnosis 16y ago

"In reality, FIJA's origins and orientation are extremist, built (like most Patriot schemes) on long-rejected legal theories and dubious "facts." Now, there have been exceptional rulings in which jury nullification can be seen ipso facto as beneficial (particularly in some of the recent drug-war cases), and these cases are cited readily by FIJA adherents. However, these cases have no more force of law in modern courts than does the Dred Scot decision (though that ruling too is cited on more than a few occasions by FIJA adherents). That system is predicated upon the admonition that juries must rule on evidence and the law, pure and simple, and they take oaths to uphold that standard. Their failure to do so in fact breaks the law. The legal powers that nullification proponents would hand to juries violates the careful balance of powers that exists within the system. If juries are deciding the justness of the laws, they are assuming powers traditionally relegated to the judiciary and, in other contexts, to the legislative branch. There is nothing in any body of law that would allow them to do this, other than the pure absence of an outright prohibition -- which actually exists in the form of the jurors’ oaths. ... It is likely that the bulk of nullification proponents -- including, probably, Mark Paschall, though his notions about placing God's laws before man's are common among both Identity followers and Christian Reconstructionists -- have no idea whose agenda they’re being used for. But then, most people are oblivious to the elements in our society that would like to see it all fall apart, and are doing their damnedest to make it happen." http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/10/spreading-extremism.html http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/10/spreading-extremism.htm...

isleyaardvark 16y ago
I don't know if that's more genetic fallacy or poisoning the well. Possibly both. "Their failure to do so in fact breaks the law." Well, no kidding. The whole idea behind jury nullification is to prevent people from going to jail because of unjust laws. Are we supposed to be surprised that the same system that has an unjust law makes it against the law to refuse to enforce an unjust law? Why not just make it against the law for juries to find proponents of jury nullification innocent? Jury nullification would not have that great of an effect, and it certainly wouldn't make society "fall apart". It would affect one trial by jury at a time. In each one you would have to convince 11 other people that a law was unjust, if just one was convinced of the law's correctness and the defendant's guilt, you'd have a hung jury.