I'd like the panel to discuss ...

Jury nullification

Most people aren't even aware of the powers of jury nullification that they possess and they need to be educated about it in order to help bring back justice to our court systems. You could have someone from the Fully Informed Jury Association on to discuss it (like I suggested on the guest suggestion forum).

2,026 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Nick shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Linda commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Spread the news of the "Juror's Handbook", most don't even know that there is one. Do what you can for your Country, serving on a jury is very important if you know your rights. Inform the ignorant of their rights. This is the only way that the people can fix the broken judicial system. If you need or want a copy of the "Juror's Handbook" please e-mail: prairiecreekranch1@yahoo.com and put juror handbook in subject line.

      • meemstoo commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... 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." United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.
        "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
        John Jay, 1st Chief Justice

        United States supreme Court, 1789
        "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
        Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,

        1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration
        "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 instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
        U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)
        The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
        "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
        Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
        "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quote;
        Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
        "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
        Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
        "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
        No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
        16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
        late 2nd, Section 256
        Your vote of NOT GUILTY must be respected by all other members of the JURY -it is the RIGHT and the DUTY of a JUROR to Never, Never, NEVER yield his or her sacred vote - for you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as an officer of the court and a qualified judge in your own right. Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be heaped on you by any other members of the JURY with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your own conscience and convictions - and not those of someone else.YOU ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP!
        By what logic do we send our youth to battle tyranny on foreign soil, while we refuse to do so in our courts? Did you know that many of the planks of the "Communist Manifesto"are now represented by law in the U.S.? How is it possible for Americans to denounce communism and practice it simultaneously?
        The JURY judges the Spirit, Motive and Intent of both the law and the Accused, whereas the prosecutor only represents the letter of the law.
        Then there would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no city of Philadelphia, and no state called Pennsylvania, for young Wiliam Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of the Bible than that of the Church of England. This appears innocent today, but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. He had broken the government's law, but he had injured no one. Those four heroic JURORS knew that only when actual injury to someone's person or property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. Many imposter laws were repealed as a result of this case.

      • meemstoo commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think it is criminal that judges continue to misinform the jury of their powers. How many victims have they claimed for their crime of lying to their juries?

      • Art commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree the jury needs to know that they are the last line of defense to stop the course of tyranny in America...it is sickening those who have sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution are the 1st to forget it....shows they care more about the number of innocent Americans they can destroy and has nothing to do with protecting and serving...

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think we also need to nullify the supreme court since they are becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.

        It's really hard to take anything that comes out of any court seriously these days.

      • Jon_Roland commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        There is a fundamental problem with instructing jurors they may vote based on their "conscience" rather than on the law. "Conscience" is just feeling. It is not a reliable guide to application of the law, which is what jurors are supposed to do. The problem is that too often what they get from the judge is not the law, and they don't know enough law to know the judge is lying. What is needed is to return to the original standard of due process and argue all issues of law to the jury, not just to the judge. In most cases the judge will be learning the law himself from the arguments of the lawyers, and the jury needs to get those same arguments if they are to learn enough to render a verdict. See constitution.org for more on this.

      • Linda commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        You are so right. That is why our Judicial System is broken, because the Juror's do not know their rights and the Judge tells them only what he wants them to know~! Ask me, they put my innocent son in prison!

      • David Afton commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Jury nullification is, pound-for-pound, the most effective check-and-balance on government tyranny; it is (or was supposed to be) the way that The People could, case by case and step by step, neutralize (nullify) bad laws that ensnared the regular folk---by acquitting a defendant just because their conscience led them to do so. Usually, it's because the law is a bad or unjust law, but it could be because the jury feels in a particular defendant's case that that defendant should go free. If the jury ignores even the most threatening or insistent judge's jury instructions, and acquits a defendant because their conscience instructs them to do so, then the People retain some power, however slender, over their own and their peers' lives, regardless of how government tries to criminalize more and more behavior. It is an essential aspect---maybe the sine qua non---of Federalism. But sadly, nowadays the government has eroded this right of jurors, and not only keeps a jury's right to vote their conscience hidden from them, but also prohibits lawyers from even mentioning this (upon penalty of contempt of court for the lawyer!). Ostensibly, as the government would argue, the People and their emotions and lowly intellect can't be trusted with such power, and must be pigeon-holed and boxed-in with stifling jury instructions that practically tell them what verdict they must render---all so the government can mollify the Constitutionalists by showing they still allow defendants to be judged by a "jury of one's peers."
        If I could identify just 3 things that our country must do in order to even have a chance at saving itself, I place the preservation of Jury Nullification 3rd [behind (1) abolishing the Fed, and (2) separation of School and State].

      • Rena commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Okay, there are nearly 2 thousand votes on this thus far. How many votes does it take to signal the station of interested viewers?

      • JWB commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please go to the FIJA web site. FIJA.ORG to learn more about this. We can take back America one Juror at a time.

      • Rik Wilcox commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In these days of federal encroachment via regulations I'm a little surprised Jury Nullification has not already been given massive coverage by ANY and ALL shows claiming to champion the Constitution.

      • Who is working for who? commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I hope the Judge sees this story about a jury.

        "Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ‘mutiny’"

        I really want to hear his take on this! We'll be watching

      • Joseph Steiner commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree that this power of the people needs to be on Freedom Watch. However, a good jury education system by the state needs to be implimented with it. The last time jury nullification was was used was in Montana in the 1980's and it took the IRS almost two years to overcome it.
        If you truly desire the power to right the shortcomings of the Constitution you need to address this issue.

      • Hung Jury commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        If anyone could present the Jury nullification case, our defender of liberty Judge Napolitano could. Let's urge the Judge to pursue this. He reaches and influences thousands. PLEASE

      • Jared Goodyear commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We're not only losing our rights, but we are also losing our ability to stand up to tyranny.

        The tea party needs to stop taking everything Glenn Beck says verbatim. He's a game player.

      • sara smith commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I learned about the Fully Informed Jury movement at an event about 20 years ago. We, the people, must exercize our rights or we lose them.

      ← Previous 1 3

      Feedback and Knowledge Base