Jury nullification also called jury lawlessness is still alive and well for those of us who know the truth. Every court in the land will tell you that it does not exist, but the truth of the matter is that they can not deny a juror his right to nullify without first doing away with trial by jury. The instructions to the jury in the very first trial in the US conducted by the Supreme Court in part read:
"... it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision."
For a more complete and through review of this subject, I suggest reading the law review article
Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right by James Joseph Duane. It also gives reference to several court cases dealing with the subject, including some Supreme Court cites. It is posted on the web. Sorry but I lost the link to it.
That being said, a few here claim that with the questions that are asked when selecting a jury would preclude any one who knows about and agrees with jury nullification to be chosen. I disagree. When asked the question "do you feel that you can judge based upon the facts in an unbiased manner" your answer should always be yes unless you have a personal vendetta against the accused. If the judge instructs you to base your verdict on the facts in the case only and he will tell you what the law is fine. I can agree to that. Are not the laws themselves facts in the case? Don't ever lie, but neither should you offer more information that what is asked of you.
I once served on a jury where a contractor was accused of swindling an older couple by taking their money without doing the work. He was also charged with operating without a valid contractor's license. In the jury room it started out 11 to 1 for guilty with me as the only hold out. The reasons given for their guilty verdict was that he was one of those who went around taking advantage of old folks. Swindling them out of their hard earned savings. After two hours of fighting our foreman went to the judge and stated we were helplessly deadlocked. The judge pulled us all back into the court and ordered us to return and not come back without a verdict.
Thankfully for the defendant there was another contractor among us jurors. The first charge of swindling I approached from a logical standpoint. We sat down with pen and paper and added up all of the work that the contractor had done and compared that against what he was paid. See he had contracted to redo the landscaping of the place. This included building a 6' retaining wall with railroad ties, filling in a large swimming pool, laying underground sprinkler system, pulling up the first 6" of dirt and replacing it with better dirt. We had pictures of the place after he was arrested to go by. The 6' retaining wall was done... our contractor estimated the cost of doing it. The swimming pool was filled in... our contractor estimated the cost of the land fill and labor to do it. The sprinkler system was in. Again we got a fair cost for it. Also the dirt was replaced. In fact all of the work had been done except for seeding and watering. Although it looked like a mess, the vast majority of the most expensive parts of the job were done. What we came up with was a cost that exceeded what he had been paid. At this point everyone voted not guilty on the first charge.
On the second charge of not having a valid contractors license, I argued that the law was intended to prevent someone who was not a contractor from doing the work. This gentleman's license had expired. I told the rest of the jurors that I was not going to convict a man for failing to renew his license because he forgot to. This was not the intent of the law. One juror asked the judge if we could do this. The judge said no, that if we determined he was without a valid license we would have no choice but to convict. By this time there were several others on my side. After a couple more hours of yelling at each other and the hour was getting late, the rest agreed to vote not guilty. Just so they could get out of there.
The one mistake I made was telling the other jurors that I felt that the law was wrong.... I should have just said I felt that he was not guilty and left it at that. Don't give any reasons to the other jurors. So what if you end up deadlocked. The effect is the same. It only takes one vote to set a person free. When asked why you believe they are not guilty you only have to say... Well I don't rightly know... I just have this feeling.
Just for everyone's information. I would never use jury nullification if someone was harmed or if the defendant broke one of the ten commandments. Other than that, I feel that it is not a law. For example murder, rape etc. I would consider gassing the person. But for tax evasion, operating without a license, most of the gun laws, etc. I would really have a problem with finding anyone guilty. These are not laws, but forms of tyranny.... But being the unbiased person I am, I would have to judge every case based upon the facts....
As to them filing charges of contempt. First they have to prove that you intentionally went into the court room knowing you would vote not guilty. If you do not give any reasons for your vote it is pretty unlikely that they could ever deveope a case against you.
Richard.
