Time: Mon Sep 29 09:41:01 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA28839;
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:36:44 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11597;
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:30:56 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:30:29 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: The Power of the Jury (fwd)
<snip>
>
> 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!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
:
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
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
_____________________________________:
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail