Cubic Dollars

[steve ravet]

Ray, have a look at the fully informed jury association at
www.fija.org.  FIJA espouses jury nullification as the most fundamental
check and balance in the US justice system.  The Supreme Court has ruled
more than once that juries have the right to judge the law, and the
potential punishment, in addition to the facts at hand.  Look for Sparf
and Hansen vs. United States.  In this decision, however, the Supreme
Court ruled that judges did not have to inform jurors of this fact. 
With the net result that today judges lie outright to jurors, saying
that the judge will supply jurors with the law, and the jury will only
decide the facts.

If you go into voir dire and volunteer this information you will
certainly be excused from jury duty, but you may be able to introduce
the concept to your fellow jurors.  If you don't speak up when the judge
asks you if you will follow his instructions, and he finds out that you
discussed nullification issues during deliberation, you may be charged
with contempt.  This happened to Laura Kriho, a juror in a minor drug
possession case in Colorado.  What she said in deliberation (supposed to
be totally secret) was leaked to the judge.  He was infuriated and
charged her with contempt.  The fact that a juror can be charged with
contempt for doing something the judge doesn't like should be absolutely
shocking, but it's received little or no attention.  So if you keep
silent during voir dire, and are selected for duty, then it might be
best to keep your mouth shut during deliberations and just hang the jury
(if that's what you believe should happen).

--steve

Raymond C Drouillard wrote:
> 
> Greg,
> 
> That is very interesting.  Where can I get documentation on that fact?  I
> am always interested in what the constitution REALLY says, rather than
> some of the more <ahem> interesting interpretations that I have seen.
> 
> The next time I am called to jury duty, I would like to have in my hands
> documentation that I have the right to judge the law as well as the
> defendant.  That would keep me from being forced to convict someone of a
> crime that shouldn't exist.
> 
> Of course, the real effect of such paperwork would probablly be to get me
> excused from the jury.  I would need to find a way to keep that from
> happening.
>