Jury nullification.

BTW, the Dougherty case among others, at least used to be one of the big law school issies...all those wide eyed students ready to change the world and free the Zengers...LOL...then you get out and discover its all about crack whores, scumbags, venal cops and Walter Mitty's.
Click to expand...

NOW I see your point clearly ! Guilty until proven otherwise. What was I thinking?

My motto used to be: Normal folk dont get arrested
Click to expand...

If the first quote didn't do it, this one sets it in stone.

See, folks, that's where this thread has been all along. There are no mistakes. There are no special interests making another of your everyday activities illegal every day, with you violating many laws each day unknowingly. There is no such thing as a psychopath deciding you are a good target and all he needs is to drop a dime in a pay phone and lie to the police about you. There is no such thing as an overzealous prosecutor who seizes on this opportunity to make points in the community for his career. There is no such thing as a magistrate who signs an arrest warrant without really reading it.

So you will, if you lead even a "normal" life, never be arrested, never be subjected to a Reid interrogation producing a false confession.

So not only do you not need jury nullification, you don't even need a jury. You need only a jury of one, and that can be the judge, being that he's experienced in the law and in good sense (as we see in the media all the time). In fact, why bother with that expensive formality? Why not just simply shoot suspects on the spot and save us all a lot of grief?

Guilty until proven otherwise. Yep, if arrested you are automatically a scumbag or a crack whore or a pedophile until you prove you are not.

And if you can't afford that proof? Oh, well!
 
Last edited:
See, folks, that's where this thread has been all along. There are no mistakes. There are no special interests making another of your everyday activities illegal every day, with you violating many laws each day unknowingly. There is no such thing as a psychopath deciding you are a good target and all he needs is to drop a dime in a pay phone and lie to the police about you. There is no such thing as an overzealous prosecutor who seizes on this opportunity to make points in the community for his career. There is no such thing as a magistrate who signs an arrest warrant without really reading it.
Click to expand...
And the converse"

See, folks, that's where this thread has been all along. There are nothing but mistakes. Its all special interests making another of your everyday activities illegal every day, with you violating many laws each day unknowingly. There nothing but psychopaths deciding you are a good target and all he needs is to drop a dime in a pay phone and lie to the police about you. There are nothing but over zealouses prosecutors who seize on this opportunity to make points in the community for his career. There iare nothing but magistrates who sign arrest warrants without really reading it.

There are nothing but political prisoners in jail or folks who innocently violate some obscure law and have their lives ruined by a government that is nothing but evil. The only criminals are the government.

Yep you're right thats America

WildturnemalllooseAlaska
 
Quote:
See, folks, that's where this thread has been all along. There are no mistakes. There are no special interests making another of your everyday activities illegal every day, with you violating many laws each day unknowingly. There is no such thing as a psychopath deciding you are a good target and all he needs is to drop a dime in a pay phone and lie to the police about you. There is no such thing as an overzealous prosecutor who seizes on this opportunity to make points in the community for his career. There is no such thing as a magistrate who signs an arrest warrant without really reading it.

And the converse"

See, folks, that's where this thread has been all along. There are nothing but mistakes. Its all special interests making another of your everyday activities illegal every day, with you violating many laws each day unknowingly. There nothing but psychopaths deciding you are a good target and all he needs is to drop a dime in a pay phone and lie to the police about you. There are nothing but over zealouses prosecutors who seize on this opportunity to make points in the community for his career. There iare nothing but magistrates who sign arrest warrants without really reading it.
Click to expand...

So, when the presumption of innocence was decided on as the standard for criminal trials, which one of these do you think those determining the standard believed was the case?

I happen to think it was determined based on the Keystone Cops version (the latter one).

And, even though presumption of innocence is the standard, as we've seen here repeated quite a few times, to paraphrase, the jury is inclined to believe, as is Wildalaska apparently, that a defendant MUST be guilty of something.

I'll take jury nullification to counter this situation. And I'm becoming more convinced rather than less that its validity has been slipped into a few laws.

(I'm not going to repeat yet again the two I have posted).
 
The Constitution does not guarantee a “jury of your peers”. It guarantees “an impartial jury”.
So answer me this, if you go in with the pre-determined idea that it doesn’t matter if the defendant is guilty or innocent of the charge (under the law in question), but you are there to nullify the law because you feel it is wrong, haven’t you given up the “impartiality” guaranteed by the Constitution?
 
No, I have not. I was impartial until I was read the law I don't like. I have nothing against the state in general. Many laws I am in complete agreement with. I don't know the defendant, so I was impartial until I learned some things about him via the trial.

You can't possibly tell me that every juror enters deliberations and checks their biases at the door. Partiality develops during the trial and even during deliberation with respect to the defendant. Why not be as impartial as possible and afford the State the same degree of imperfection?

It is a fact that some people get convicted because they wore the wrong clothing or picked the wrong judge who ruled the wrong way on objections during their trials, or because they had the wrong color skin, or some odd accent. The system is adversarial. It's only fair that the very same thing can happen to the State.

I am on extremely firm ground when I say I have the POWER to nullify, once a juror. Will I be clever enough to get through voir dire? Time will tell.

But, given the laws I copied, at least on the state level, I think it's more than simply the power to do so if I can manage it. I think it is implicit in the law (state) itself.

If not, then do tell me why Florda requires a jury charge include the potential sentence. If a jury's job is to try the facts only, and not the law, then they have no need to know the potential sentence, yet there it is in a statute.

Now, you might be held in contempt if you come out and say that you thought the potential (or mandatory) sentence didn't fit the "crime", so you insisted on acquittal.

That doesn't answer the question of why the charge is required, by law, to disclose the sentence.

I read that as a tacit admission that jury nullification is somewhere between a simple power and a right.

You can't be serious that the Constitution guarantees an impartial jury. I personally guarantee that no juror is completely impartial. That's why there's more than one juror, to average out the biases people all have. I'll put my guarantee up against the Constitution's any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
Deadin, you posted a good question. That is why we are to judge both the law and the FACTS in question.

If a person is generally (at least as far as we know) a good individual who has run afowl of bad law..then it is our duty to nullify the law in that circumstance.

But we all know that won't always be the case. Often you will sit on a case dealing with a truly bad individual who has broken a perfectly acceptable law. That is NOT a case in which I would nullify.

However, that is another scenario: How about a truly evil guy (murderer, rapist, kidnapper, etc) who violates what many of us would deem an "offensive" law? I could do what I thought was the "greater good" and find the guy guilty in order to get him off the streets. (honestly, that would be a temptation) But in doing so, we would be at least nominally supporting another one of the government's edicts. I don't know if I could do that. It would be a really difficult decision.
 
"However, that is another scenario: How about a truly evil guy (murderer, rapist, kidnapper, etc) who violates what many of us would deem an "offensive" law? I could do what I thought was the "greater good" and find the guy guilty in order to get him off the streets. (honestly, that would be a temptation) But in doing so, we would be at least nominally supporting another one of the government's edicts. I don't know if I could do that. It would be a really difficult decision"
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be a difficult decision at all. If the man is on trial for one offense, and only that offense, his other character traits, or past offenses, should have no bearing. PERIOD.
 
Danzig,
My point is that if the defense has done its job, you are not going to know if the defendant is a "good guy" or a "bad guy". (Remember, no prior record allowed). So the decision to nullify or not will need to be based on your feelings about the law in question.
Now I can give you credence if you get on a jury and have never previously heard of the law in question, that nullification might be acceptable. However this whole discussion is revolving around having previously made up your mind that the law (illegal carry in this case) is invalid and trying, even to the point of lying during voir dire, to get on a jury so you can nullify it.
 
I don't know if a juror knows about the charges for a case until they've already been picked.

But I will be honest. If I know that someone is on trial or carrying concealed without a license, possession of a sound suppressor, or some other non violent crime, I WOULD do anything it took to try and get on that jury. As you seem to be fishing for this answer: Yes, I would lie to get on that jury because that is the ONLY way I would be in a position to judge that law and do something about it.
 
Danzig

"Yes, I would lie to get on that jury because that is the ONLY way I would be in a position to judge that law and do something about it."
Click to expand...

You, and people with your attitude, are a detriment to our system of justice. I would be embarrassed to make that kind of statement.
 
You, and people with your attitude, are a detriment to our system of justice. I would be embarrassed to make that kind of statement.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not one of the folks who expects to be using the 2nd amendment's RKBA as a means to remain free from tyrannical government. If not, then you are at least consistent. If so, that statement is the kettle calling the pot black.
 
If not, then you are at least consistent. If so, that statement is the kettle calling the pot black.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Danzig is already on record here stating that he hasn't tried any of the other means that are in place to change laws he doesn't like. He came up with a variety of excuses why, but the fact remains that he hasn't availed himself of these devices.

As a result, all he's doing is lying to the court. He fully admits that, which I suppose mitigates it somewhat, but his justification for doing it simply isn't there.

You can't use the rallying cry of "its our last check against the government" unless it really is your last check against the government.

I highly doubt that any of you who are so willing to use this have actually personally challenged law you feel unjust in court. "I don't have the time" or "I don't have the money" is what I suppose I'll hear from you folks.

Thats fine. You've put a price on your rights and a limit on how far you will go to protect them. The only reason why jury nullification is so palatable is because there is no risk, no effort, and no consequences if you have an IQ above room temperature.

Summer soldiers if you ask me. And liars to boot.
 
Thats fine. You've put a price on your rights and a limit on how far you will go to protect them. The only reason why jury nullification is so palatable is because there is no risk, no effort, and no consequences if you have an IQ above room temperature
Click to expand...

Of course! What idiot would purposely pay money or quit his job to violate a law with the hopes of dragging it to the Supreme Court (so that "activist judges" could strike the law down) when it's unlikely that would happen, and when they can simply refuse to convict anyone for a violation of that law?

We're not talking $1000 here, you know.
 
Of course! What idiot would purposely pay money or quit his job to violate a law with the hopes of dragging it to the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

Who said anything about violating a law. You can challenge a law without violating it.
 
OK, I want to challenge section 922 (q) of the federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996, and I want to challenge it based on a lack of authority in the commerce clause. How do I do that? Don't I have to have something called "standing" to do that? Remember, IANAL. Is this going to be expensive, because the only thing which pays lower than my boat-selling job is my farming?
 
Yes, you have to have standing, but with things like CCW laws and no issue states, as an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, you are suffering a direct harm not being able to carry.

Standing requires that you have suffered some hard or face an immediate threat of prosecution. Most times the harm is shown because someone is being prosecuted. However this isn't the only way to have standing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top