Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Advocacy of jury nullification as Constitutionally protected. Eugene Volokh

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    Advocacy of jury nullification as Constitutionally protected. Eugene Volokh

    Felony prosecution for distributing pro-jury-nullification leaflets outside courthouse Advocating jihad or revolution or violent crime is generally constitutionally protected. Why not advocating jury nullification, which isn't a crime, even if courts think such nullification is a breach of the jury's legal duty?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...oodLeaflet.pdf

    Volokh: "It seems to me that such speech is constitutionally protected, and that the prosecution therefore violates the First Amendment. One can debate whether jury nullification is good or bad for the legal system, but it’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict. So Wood is encouraging a jury to engage in legal — even if, in the view of some, harmful — conduct."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...de-courthouse/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The statist courts hate the constitution and the common people.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    It's Michigan.



    Yes, I said it. Look at the arcane gun laws of Michigan, do I need to say more?

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    There is a opportunity to have SCOTUS decide whether or not their decisions could be nullified by a panel of 12 liberty centric citizens...on a case by case basis. Sweet!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    There is a opportunity to have SCOTUS decide whether or not their decisions could be nullified by a panel of 12 liberty centric citizens...on a case by case basis. Sweet!
    I nullify many of their decisions .... they cannot vote regarding any right.

    All it takes is 1 out of 12 in most cases ... so if the gov't passes a goofy law it does not take a 50% vote to effectively overturn the law ,, but only about 8%.

    That's the power we have..but many never use...baaa baaa baaa.

    I have stated that as a jurist I would have refused to convict .. and told the judge why - he did not like it one bit. Tough cookies is what I told him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I nullify many of their decisions .... they cannot vote regarding any right.

    All it takes is 1 out of 12 in most cases ... so if the gov't passes a goofy law it does not take a 50% vote to effectively overturn the law ,, but only about 8%.

    That's the power we have..but many never use...baaa baaa baaa.

    I have stated that as a jurist I would have refused to convict .. and told the judge why - he did not like it one bit. Tough cookies is what I told him.
    You did not get locked up for that?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    You did not get locked up for that?

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Nope..just some sneering and growling and pointing at me as if to say "Bad Libertarian!" .

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    From the article linked in the OP:

    According to Michigan authorities, his leafletting (1) constitutes felony “obstruction of justice,” by “knowingly and intentionally giving the members of a . . . jury pool a pamphlet that encouraged the jurors to violate theiroaths...(emphasis added by Citizen)
    Whoa! Why are jurors being administered an oath that circumscribes their right to judge the law as well as the facts? Government knows jury nullification is a right and legitimate power. There can only be one possible reason to rig the oath so as to exclude jury nullification.

    Can anybody get a copy of the Michigan juror's oath in question?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Here is the jury oath for Michigan:

    (3) Here is your oath: "Each of you do solemnly swear (or affirm) that, in this action now before the court, you will justly decide the questions submitted to you, that, unless you are discharged by the court from further deliberation, you will render a true verdict, and that you will render your verdict only on the evidence introduced and in accordance with the instructions of the court, so help you God." (emphasis added by Citizen)

    (Michigan Model Criminal Jury Instructions.)

    http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigan...ts/mcrimji.pdf
    The government trickery is plain to see: "...and in accordance with the instructions of the court." They're basically getting the juror to unknowingly swear away his recognized right and legitimate power to also judge the law itself, and/or vote his conscience by swearing to follow the judges instructions.

    Caught the bast__ds!!




    Nevermind that "true verdict" is redundant. Verdict means to speak the truth. Veritas (truth) + dictum (something said). Under Henry II, late 1100's, royal judges were sent to take jurisdiction of trials traditionally held at baronial manors. As the process evolved, royal judges commanded the shire reeve (sheriff) to find twelve men who, being local, were presumed to know the facts of the case. These men were required to tell the judge what they knew, and, of course, truthfully.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-04-2015 at 10:17 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    From the article linked in the OP:



    Whoa! Why are jurors being administered an oath that circumscribes their right to judge the law as well as the facts? Government knows jury nullification is a right and legitimate power. There can only be one possible reason to rig the oath so as to exclude jury nullification.

    Can anybody get a copy of the Michigan juror's oath in question?
    The oath does not prohibit nullification. Courts are free to give out instructions to discourage nullification...and actually encourage the discouragement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •