Jury nullification.

First, I'm not looking for a Ferrari. I'm looking to discourage prosecutors from bothering to even charge on cases involving laws that are so stupid or that have penalties that are so absurd when compared to "real" crimes like rape and murder.

If I were pining for the Ferrari, I'd admonish my cries of "unfair" by telling myself to work harder for it, and that would be that. But more than a Ferrari is involved here.

It is unfair that you might be robbed at the grocery store. You might consider evening up the unfairness of that possibility by carrying a firearm, rather than allowing yourself to be robbed and then going through a prosecution of the robber. Both are legal, but one is a definite shortcut.

There exists a way to even the playing field when busybodies have stuck their noses into the lawmaking processes and unduly influenced people like Mark Foley to write laws that can snare anyone, causing them great expense even if they are innocent. It's a process that's hypocritical at best, and certainly not morally defensible.

Hence, to even the playing field, I don't have to be any more morally defensible than the writers and special interests were.

Look up the reasoning and timeline and motivations for the writing of the nation's controlled substances act, and look at the lies and special interest coddling that went on to get where we are. The attitude seems to have been "whatever works".

So I say fight fire with fire. Use "whatever works", including lying during voir dire if need be. Just don't make your lie anything easy to rebut.

When lawmakers get back to writing laws that are truly intended to protect the public without putting innocents at high risk of prosecution, then I'll reevaluate stance on whether it's more important to be truthful during voir dire or to counterbalance an oppressive lawmaking process.

--

Second .. see next post - I have to refer to another post.
 
What does having a predisposition to lie in order to influence a jury have to do with the RKBA ??
Click to expand...

OK, I'll spell it out.

Those who see the 2nd amendment as a last-ditch means to protect against tyrrany are saying that, if "things get bad enough", it permits them to go against written law and use their weapons against government officials.

Are these the same people who are telling me that if I think the state of written law is "bad enough" that lying during voir dire in order to counter that will be immoral or in some other way nasty?

Which is worse? Kill a government official in violation of law, or lie under voir dire in contempt of court?

Get real.

The former is a dangerous way to fend off oppressive government and is unlikely to change anything, and most likely to get you killed and that will be that. I highly discourage it.

The latter is an orderly way of doing the job, and is no less "moral" than was the way the laws were made in the first place. And it's cheaper.
 
Deadin, the "majority" is stupid. They allow things like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and socialist leaders like Hugo Chavez. All of these people and situations came to power legally because the majority voted them in.

More evidence that people are stupid: Despite the lessons we have in the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, morons STILL vote into power socialists like Hugo Chavez. Hey, if that's what the majority want, that's what they've got. It was their choice. But the minority of freddom loving people still got screwe by the majority. I feel sorry for them.

The Constitution was intended to provide protection for the minorities from the tyranny that the majority could impose using the force of government. For instance, the Second Amendment. The majority of U.S. citizens could honestly believe that guns are evil and should be outlawed. The Second Amendment was meant to protect our rights from that majority. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORAL OR RIGHT!

You've got me there Stage 2. When the rights of the minority are in jeopardy and cannot prevail in courts of law, or at the ballot box there are few options left. We can try and change the opinion of the majority through education but I think we've all seen how well that works. The tendency is always toward LESS freedom than more.

Voting doesn't work. Period. As has been noted on this board on many occasions, the only candidates that can be trusted to do the right thing CANNOT win. Ron Paul for instance. That being the case, what reason is there to put any trust in the political process? There is none if our candidates simply cannot be elected.

The last option, if we cannot repeal bad laws or put good leaders in place, is to repeal the government. And we know the likelihood of THAT succeeding.

So, is the situation hopeless? Somebody chime in please. Tell me how the political and legal systems can be made to work when there is overwhelming evidence that they don't work at all for political minorities.
 
I want to carry guns around regardless of the proximity of schools, and that I want to build my own machine gun. Neither of those things are legal in America under federal law.
Click to expand...

Somehow I can’t seem to put CCW on schoolgrounds and building a full auto in the same bucket. I feel that there may be a chance, with proper lobbying, to change the school law. (See Socrates’s post #357) However the PACs that have enough clout to accomplish it currently have bigger fish to fry. Like CCW in general, the new AWB, etc.. So wait your turn.
BTW progress is being made on CCW see http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php (Thanks pax)

As for it being illegal to build a FA, it’s not. It’s inconvenient, but not illegal. Get a Manufacturers license and jump through all the hoops required. (In fact, I believe this even gets around the WA State anti-machine gun law.)

So I say fight fire with fire. Use "whatever works", including lying during voir dire if need be. Just don't make your lie anything easy to rebut.
Click to expand...

Yeah, go ahead and short circuit our court system. Just remember that JN can cut both ways. If lying in voir dire becomes de rigeur for a minority to get its way just think of the possibilities it opens up. Antis could use the same tactic to make sure that any one charged with any kind of a gun charge won’t get a fair trial and are convicted regardless of circumstances.
Another option being suggested is open, armed rebellion. This is so ridiculous as to not even deserve rebuttal. Although one thing it would accomplish would be a thinning of the ranks of those eligible to own firearms in the first place.

You know, IMO the biggest problem the anti NFA 34 folks face is what I would call ambivalent inertia in the voting public. There just aren’t enough people that care, one way or the other, about whether or not full autos are available to the public and will vote to just leave things as they are.
If required to make a decision (pro or con), they will ask themselves “Is this something that will make my life any better”. Being ambivalent, the answer will be “no”. Next they will think of “who uses machine guns” and their only “expertise” will come from Hollywood and TV where, almost universally, it’s BG’s that are shooting up the general public with machine guns and using silencers to do their evil deeds. Then they will think of the whack-job down the street (or cousin Fred) and ask themselves “Do I want him to have access to a these things?”
The answer will be “Not really” and their vote will be to restrict even farther or, at best, just leave things as they are.
 
So, is the situation hopeless? Somebody chime in please. Tell me how the political and legal systems can be made to work when there is overwhelming evidence that they don't work at all for political minorities.
Click to expand...

Danzig,
You posted while I was writing my last post or I would have responded in it.
I think you may have answered your own question with "We can try and change the opinion of the majority through education." I see this as the only truely viable option but as you also said " it doesn't appear to work". I feel that it will work, but only very, very slowly. (See the reference to the CCW laws in my last post.) If you are looking for a quick resolution, I don't see it happening. In fact I'm afraid that if we push too hard we may very well lose more than we gain. This fear even goes as far as seeing the 2nd being repealed. After all, it's just another Amendment, the machinery to do it is there and it wouldn't be the first time it happened. (Yes, it would be the first time for one in the BOR, but not beyond the realm of possibility.)
 
invention 45

"OK, I'll spell it out.

Those who see the 2nd amendment as a last-ditch means to protect against tyrrany are saying that, if "things get bad enough", it permits them to go against written law and use their weapons against government officials.

Are these the same people who are telling me that if I think the state of written law is "bad enough" that lying during voir dire in order to counter that will be immoral or in some other way nasty?"
Click to expand...

Thank you for "spelling it out".

I guess when all is said and done, I am of not of the first opinion, but I do hold the second.

My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure that we are not deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. I know the argument exists that this could include defending oneself against a "tyrannical government", but I guess I worry more about daily safety on a personal level.

I have served as a juror on numerous occasions. To me, the idea of lying while serving as a juror, or a prospective juror, is just flat wrong. I have witnessed people lying and/or refusing to apply the law while on a jury, and I cannot state strongly enough what I feel toward that person or persons. Others here see nothing wrong with lying as it suits them, but if they choose to run their life that way, that is their problem, not mine.
 
Antis could use the same tactic to make sure that any one charged with any kind of a gun charge won’t get a fair trial and are convicted regardless of circumstances.
Click to expand...

Really? How could they do this? Perhaps lie, get on the jury, and hang it? That's not a conviction.

And what makes you think that people aren't already doing exactly this? If you are a Republican, it seems you think half the US population are liars and frauds. If you are a Democrat, it seems you think the other half are liars and frauds. So it would seem that, particularly given the last 20 or so years of political activity that we have been able to observe, right or wrong, people are already generally lying, even if it's "for the greater good".

I don't have to look back very far for a perfect example of how people are certainly lying every day to get onto juries.

A couple years back I was called. I got so far as a courtroom with about 40 potential jurors. Voir dire began with a couple general questions announced and a going down the rows of seats for the answers. I forget the question, but we got down to about the 15th juror before one lady's turn came up.

This woman said she probably couldn't serve in this DV case because her daughter had been raped and the defendant acquitted, and she thought "all defense lawyers were scumbags". Needless to say, the 40 of us had the rest of the day off.

Now, what happened with the first 14 who were asked before her? Given the day's opinion of lawyers, what are the odds that all 14 thought that lawyers were just lovely? Low, I'd say. But no mention of that was made. OK, so maybe 14 people in a row like lawyers and were not lying.

But given that so many look at lawyers like used car salesmen these days, how would it ever be possible to seat a jury unless everybody simply kept to themselves their opinions about lawyers?

If I'm asked, I like defense attorneys and prosecutors. Prove me wrong.

If I'm asked, I could convict someone for smoking pot to ease cancer pain. Prove me wrong.

If I'm asked, yes, I think I read an article about 10 years ago about, what, jury disqualification. Isn't that where they think one juror can convict a criminal? Prove I'm not BS ing.

When the politicians and special interests play the game honestly, so will I. I'm waiting......................
 
Really? How could they do this? Perhaps lie, get on the jury, and hang it? That's not a conviction.
Click to expand...

Back atcha. Same thing as you are championing. And yes it's not a conviction any more than your "nullification" is an acquittal. All it does is short out the court system. I can't even imagine how many "hung" juries it would take to get a law changed, if at all. What it would take is a mandate from the juries by acquittals to send the message that the law is "bad". (And it would only take one “anti” to sabotage this.
If you have enough support to assure that you could pack all juries with people that would be willing to find “not guilty” for CCW/NFA 34 infractions, you should have enough people to change the law via the ballot box and not screw up the impartial jury guarantee.

Oh, and as to people lying during voir dire in your example, they are doing this to get out of jury duty, not to further a cause by hanging juries. I have no respect for them whatsoever, even though it's for personal reasons. I have even less for liars that are pushing a political agenda.
 
They allow things like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and socialist leaders like Hugo Chavez. All of these people and situations came to power legally because the majority voted them in.
Click to expand...

Other than Chavez you are absolutely positively wrong.

Voting doesn't work. Period. As has been noted on this board on many occasions, the only candidates that can be trusted to do the right thing CANNOT win. Ron Paul for instance. That being the case, what reason is there to put any trust in the political process? There is none if our candidates simply cannot be elected.
Click to expand...

No offense, but some of the complaints Im seeing here about the US political system remind me of a 5 year old whose pissed that he is getting chocolate ice cream. He wants ice cream but doesnt like chocolate.

WildyacantalwaysgetwhatyawantdealwithitAlaska

PS..all this talk about bad laws etc...deal with it. Until a supreme court says so, they dont exist. Like I said, better the government i can work with than the individuals I cannot
 
Back atcha. Same thing as you are championing. And yes it's not a conviction any more than your "nullification" is an acquittal. All it does is short out the court system.
Click to expand...

First, an anti is not going to be motivated to try to nullify. The anti wants to convict you of the bad law, remember? He might use nullification to hang the jury, but you'd get another trial, and be not convicted in the meantime. This would work to your advantage if at all. The prosecutor might decide to drop the whole thing. Thus, you beat the anti by his application of nullification.

Second, I never said nor even imagined nullification as an acquittal. It's either an acquittal in the unlikely event that the nullifiying juror can come up with a convincing reason to push just below "beyond reasonable doubt", or a hung jury, which might not be retried.

I can't even imagine how many "hung" juries it would take to get a law changed, if at all. What it would take is a mandate from the juries by acquittals to send the message that the law is "bad". (And it would only take one “anti” to sabotage this.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors want to win cases. They look bad if they don't. If a minority keep hanging juries for a particular bad law, perhaps the prosecutor will use some of his very wide discretion in not charging it anymore.

Oh, and as to people lying during voir dire in your example, they are doing this to get out of jury duty, not to further a cause by hanging juries.
Click to expand...

Um. My example was of people who dislike lawyers, which seems a very popular thing to do, keeping that dislike under their hats during voir dire, with the effect being to contribute to keeping them ON the jury, not getting sent home. The exception, the woman who told the truth, not only got herself booted, but everyone in the room, and for the rest of the year.

I have even less for liars that are pushing a political agenda
Click to expand...

Well, then, you're in luck; there's an easy solution. Simply don't vote for any politicians, since they are professional liars pushing a political agenda.
 
No offense, but some of the complaints Im seeing here about the US political system remind me of a 5 year old whose pissed that he is getting chocolate ice cream. He wants ice cream but doesnt like chocolate.
Click to expand...

In my case, I'm stuck with a political system wherein special interests of all kinds have undue influence and create laws that restrict my freedom without protecting anyone from anything. This deceitful situation I have accepted; not because I think it is being done properly, but because that is the way it is and I can't do anything to fix it.

However, along with my having accepted that baloney, bloviation, and outright lies are going to result in stupid laws, the creators of said laws are going to have to likewise accept my decision to nullify them if I so desire and can get away with it.

Time has shown that busybodies of all sorts don't fight fair when it comes to making laws to implement their desires. I'm not going to fight fair either.

There is a consequence to be paid for turning every little thing you don't like into a prohibitive law. And that consequence is a revolt of some kind. Jury nullification is my part in that revolt.
 
No offense, but some of the complaints Im seeing here about the US political system remind me of a 5 year old whose pissed that he is getting chocolate ice cream. He wants ice cream but doesnt like chocolate.
Click to expand...

Its more like, democracy is the best tasting and easiest to swallow glass of urine.
 
Certainly a lot of disenchanted, cynical, pissed-off people on these threads. Must really suck to be around those types of people on a regular basis.
 
In my case, I'm stuck with a political system wherein special interests of all kinds have undue influence and create laws that restrict my freedom without protecting anyone from anything. This deceitful situation I have accepted; not because I think it is being done properly, but because that is the way it is and I can't do anything to fix it.
Click to expand...

Change the system then.

If you dont like the fact that value judgements are made by compromising to the needs of ALL of those special interests, then you have to scrap the entire system. Scrap it.

If the petty annoyances YOU personally feel (no machine guns, made to wear a bike helmet) are too much, scrap the system. Everyone has a bitch about government, your bitch is different from my bitch or her bitch or his bitch. You deal with the silliness in life from all sides with an eye on the big picture. Know what?...as goofy and worthless as our system can be vis a vis unconstituional social engineering (in my view at least, hey there are folks that want that and can constitutionally justify that, competing interests, wow), I can be some numbnutts terrorist in some stinky jail and still have access to the US Courts...what a concept...rule of law.

And to mock the system like I am seeing here is basically a slap in the face to everyone in this polity who seeks to have their voices heard.

There is a consequence to be paid for turning every little thing you don't like into a prohibitive law. And that consequence is a revolt of some kind. Jury nullification is my part in that revolt.
Click to expand...

I think we need to have some reading lists given out here. I doubt the Founding Fathers were concerned with smoking in resteraunts as they considered the rights of Man. Lets dump the system becasue we have speed limits!

Dont miss the forest for the trees

WildtodayisebaydayAlaska
 
along with my having accepted that baloney, bloviation, and outright lies are going to result in stupid laws
Click to expand...

Note that I have accepted that this is the system I'm in. That is to say, I'll obey the laws that I know about, stupid as they may be. Hopefully if I inadvertently violate one I don't know about, some juror will somehow come to my rescue. Maybe. Maybe not.

However, I do not believe that I am there as a juror to judge only the "facts" of a case. I repeat, the best proof that what is a fact and what isn't depends on who is evaluating it is that we have a minimum 6-man jury requirement, not a single-man jury. Those who set forth this protection must have done so for a reason. The law, at least in Florida, requires a jury to be informed as to the possible sentence for the crime charged. This wasn't just a slip of the pen, and it means that a juror is entitled to judge based on something other than strictly the facts.

I interpret the whole situation as license to use my full faculties when asked to help decide the fate of another human being. And I intend to do so with more enthusiasm than I have for most anything else.

My full faculties includes all that I know and think, the facts as presented, the facts as I perceive them to really be, what I know about what is likely to happen if the defendant is found guilty, and whether I think that result is appropriate for the action being prosecuted. I owe my fellow citizen no less, and that's how it's going to be.

As for changing the system, I am not unhappy with the system's basic structure, so in that sense, no thanks.

However, as opportunities arise to change parts of the system, i.e., its laws, I'll take them.

That does not alter my description of the system as containing law based on much hypocrisy and fallacy. All that needs to be said to prove that is "Mark Foley".
 
I'm stealing this link from Glenn E. Meyer. Have a look at it. Pay attention to what prosecutors do when they want to, despite what the legislature and law say to do. This is how the system works.

http://tsra.com/docs/AboveTheLaw.pdf

Notice that you can be arrested and charged with a crime, despite the legislature's intent for you to not be. THIS is my problem with the system, not its basic structure.

Something has to exist to counteract such corrupt behavior. Changing the law didn't help. What if you're in Texas and are the unfortunate soul who gets arrested despite the law saying you shouldn't, and the prosecutor charges you and you go to trial before the ACLU remedies this situation (if it can)?

In this case, the prosecutor would not have felt sufficiently bound by honor to keep you out of the hot seat. Who you gonna call?

Me, that's who. You want somebody in that jury room who looks at every attempt to control behavior that has no victim very closely for any possibility of fraud, and who allows your conviction ONLY if he's convinced that you are an intentionally bad SOB. Not some sheep who will look at "just the facts, ma'am".

My apologies to Glenn in advance for stealing his link to make a point I don't know that he agrees with.
 
Not some sheep who will look at "just the facts, ma'am".
Click to expand...

make up facts as you go along then..... :)

Not all so cut and dried, and neither is that pamphlet by the way..

Hey look its the ACLU defending gun rights LOL

So isnt the bottom line here that some folks will work with the systemm to try to change things, whilst others will lie to foul things up?

WildthisonehasrunitscourseireckonAlaska
 
You guys just reminded me why I went to Law School. Your easiest route to getting the laws erased is to get a law degree, pass the bar, file in court, with no expenses, except filing fees, and do it yourself, or, with like minded attorneys.

HAVE TO GET OFF MY ASS AND GET TO IT. Working for the NRA legal department would be a major step forward...

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top