Closing Statement to the Jury
by
Sheila Terese Wallen
Defendant
Ladies And Gentlemen of the Jury. Needless to say, I'm very
scared and very nervous. I don't know what I should know to tell
you in this case. I have been denied assistance of counsel by
the Court. So I'll do the best that I can. I ask your patience
and your indulgence. Please bear with me in this ordeal.
Let me begin with a very basic -- but an apparent long
forgotten -- fact.
When you read the Declaration of Independence it says that
God created each of us, you and me, with unalienable Rights --
natural Rights. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness. That Declaration, signed more than 200 years ago,
gave each of us to sovereignty of a King or a Queen. Subject to
no one or to no government.
We The People, like you and me, then created the
Constitution for each of the States. The States then created the
United States Government. The delegation of power, then, comes
to We the People directly from our God-given Rights. We
delegated some of this power to each of the States. The States,
in turn, then delegated very limited power to the federal
government.
This case before you today is not just about a few marijuana
plants, ladies and gentlemen. The State of Arizona, which is
more powerful than the federal government, has stated that one
can buy and sell marijuana in Arizona if you have a license to do
so.
Yet, today, the federal government now says that it has more
power than its creator - the State. How can the created become
more powerful than its creator? Can any one of you become more
powerful than God who created you? Is it now possible for you to
dictate to the God who created you? I think not!
This entire matter goes far beyond a few plants that are a
natural substance placed here by God. This matter really goes
beyond the so-called "Drug war" that was created by the
government, maintained by the government, and controlled by the
government.
The so-called "War on drugs" is actually a "war on civil
liberties and human rights". Nine million people -- nine million
-- have been arrested for possession or sale of marijuana since
1965, when the government started this war.
The National Drug and Crime Emergency Act (HR 4079), and the
anti-drug abuse Act (1988) has thrown many of our civil rights
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 1 of 5
and due process out the window. This "war" has justified all
kinds of unconstitutional and unconscionable police activities,
including illegal search, seizure, and the forfeiture of property
without a trial.
This is summary punishment, and it is forbidden by the
Constitution for the United States of America.
What is at stake here is the very foundation upon which this
nation was built -- The Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution for the United States of America, and the principle
for which it stands: Freedom from government tyranny -- the
Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Each of these people conducting this trial, -- the police
who testified against me -- the United States Prosecutor -- and
Judge Browning -- all took an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution for the united States for America. They each must,
by law, take this oath.
Yet, you have heard here, in this courtroom, how each and
everyone of them has violated and broken that oath. Each one of
them has breached their contract with the American people. They
have breached their solemn oath with each one of you.
This case is not about marijuana possession.
This case is about monopoly, just like that old board game
we used to play as kids (and sometimes as adults too). This is
government monopoly, over the practice of law, over drug
smuggling, over automotive fuels, over everything they can
control and get their hands on.
You have heard this judge say that only he can rule on the
law. Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it
a federal crime to obstruct justice and to commit perjury of
oath.
Then have him explain to you the decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Powell in which that court
was forced to throw out all its prior precedents and allow
defendants to read the law to juries and to explain their
understanding of that law to juries.
You have heard this judge sustain objections to questions
which I have put to my Counsel of Choice. Then have him explain
to you the federal law which makes it a federal crime to deprive
any Citizen of fundamental, unalienable Rights like those
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
You have heard this judge say that he has already ruled on
the matter of unwarranted search and seizure. Then have him read
and explain the Fourth Amendment to you, as I will do right now:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 2 of 5
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
I say to you that you, Ladies and Gentlemen, have full and
complete power and authority to make that determination yourself,
and your decision will be binding, no matter what this judge says
or wants you to believe.
You have good reason to expect that this judge will uphold
the Law in these United States of America, of which the Arizona
Republic is one. Then have him read and explain the Fifth
Amendment to you, which reads:
No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.
You have watched this Judge deny Me my fundamental Right to
have the effective assistance of My Counsel, at all times and
places of my choosing. Then have him read and explain to you the
Sixth Amendment, which reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for her defense.
You have watched this judge proceed as if he has
jurisdiction in this case. Then have him explain to you the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst in which
that court held that if the assistance of Counsel is not
available to a criminal defendant -- at every step in the
proceedings -- then the trial court is ousted of jurisdiction to
proceed, and must dismiss the case, with prejudice.
And while he's at it, have him explain to you how it is that
an affidavit, verified under penalty of perjury, and numerous
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can be considered as hearsay
and with no legal significance. Ask him to show you a certified
copy of his decision to that effect in this case. And ask him to
explain what motion of mine he denied, and why.
You have a right to all of these things, because the U.S.
Supreme Court, in the year 1995, ruled that juries are empowered
to decide relevance of evidence, to decide materiality of
evidence, and to decide the law itself. That case was U.S. v.
Gaudin.
Let me remind you.
You heard what the one policeman said about the many years
he has been on the police force. He told you that he did not
know what the fourth Amendment stated!
This man has been on the police force for 18 years. He has
arrested, caused the fines, and the imprisonment of who knows how
many people. Who knows how many lives and families he has
destroyed. Yet, he does not know what the fourth Amendment
states!!
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 3 of 5
The police have admitted they did not have a search warrant.
In spite of the fact that the Fourth Amendment demands that he
has a search warrant. The Judge has ruled in this case -- as he
has stated on numerous occasions -- that the police did not need
a search warrant.
This is a blatant violation of the Constitution. This is a
breach of contract by the police and the Judge.
You have heard the Judge deny me counsel of my choice in
direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. The Sixth Amendment reads as follows:
"Shall have the assistance of Counsel for his defense." As
you have all seen and heard here in this courtroom, the Judge has
denied me assistance of Counsel of my choosing. Nowhere in that
Amendment does it state that I must have a licensed bar member to
represent me. It reads: TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
HER DEFENCE.
I have been denied assistance of counsel in this case.
Here, again, the Court violates the Constitution, in a blatant
and egregious manner.
Additionally, the Judge has refused to allow you, the jury,
to be fully informed as to your duties, your responsibilities,
and your Rights.
Let me read to you what some of our forefathers have said
concerning your rights and duties as a jury.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the
fact in controversy." This was stated by John Jay, our first
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1789.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the
facts," stated Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Signer
of the unanimous Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of
both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice, 1902.
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which
is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone. 12th Chief Justice, U.S,
Supreme Court, 1941.
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's
exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the
judge . . .." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 Fed second, pages 1113-to
-1139.
You -- as a jury -- armed with a little knowledge, and
knowing what your rights, powers, and duties really are, can do
more to re-establish "Liberty and justice for all" in this State
than all the Senators and Representatives put together.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 4 of 5
Why?
Because, even without the concurrence of any of your fellow
jurors in a criminal trial, you, with your single vote of "NOT
GUILTY" can nullify every rule or "law" that is not within the
principles of natural, God-given, or Constitutional Law. It is
precisely this power of nullification that makes trial by JURY
one of the most important of our RIGHTS. It can protect and
preserve all of your Rights -- and all of my Rights.
You, the Jurors, each have the power, the Right, and the
duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
of America. If the government, the police and even the Judge
chooses to violate their Oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution, you can still do so with your vote of not guilty in
this case.
Thank you. God bless each of you. And God bless America.
Closing Statement to the Jury: Page 5 of 5
# # #
Return to the Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Wallen