Why Jury Decisions Reflect the View of Government
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago to Government
"This is a famous case for it illustrated that at some point, the faith of the people in government collapses so much that finally juries stand up in protest against corrupt and biased prosecutions. In France, it became the Revolution with Bastille Day freeing the prisoners from jail.
....
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In ‘United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. History repeats because the passions of man never change. Judges enjoy the power and do not want juries to refuse their commands. This is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and demonstrates how and why the cycle of how nations collapse always returns."
....
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In ‘United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. History repeats because the passions of man never change. Judges enjoy the power and do not want juries to refuse their commands. This is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and demonstrates how and why the cycle of how nations collapse always returns."
SOURCE URL: http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33313
"In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. This illustrates that the very same powers of the judge in the case against William Penn are alive and well."
I was one of several jurors who were being interviewed individually by the lawyers and the judge. It was a drug possession case (less than an ounce; felony charge), and they wanted to know if I would be able to rule according to the law and the judge's instruction. I told them, "I think so; the law will be my default. But ultimately, I will decide based on my conscience." They went back and forth with me a little bit, but they were not at all happy. They rejected me as a juror.
I believe that jury nullification is acceptable. In fact, I believe it is one of the few ways us "common folk" can affect at least a small degree of positive legal reform. More people need to know about it and use it. But I also believe that, like this article says, most judges and lawyers hate jury nullification and will seek to avoid people who know about it.
So what is the solution? Should I have pretended that I would just be a Yes Man, just robotically do whatever the judge told me to do? That seems to be a lack of integrity.