Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: In re Jury Nullification, HB1270 amendment. H/T Volokh Conspiracy

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    In re Jury Nullification, HB1270 amendment. H/T Volokh Conspiracy

    Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...&id=2016-0253H

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

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    [I]t is the opinion of the court, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution that questions of law, and still less, questions of constitutional law, should be decided by the verdict of the jury, contrary to the instructions of the court.
    The hubris!!! Proves my point, again, that judges are not concerned for the law, let alone concerned for justice, but concerned only for precious their process and immunity from any accountability.
    "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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The way that they vote on bills and handle the business of the legislature it all violates the due process rights we have ... I nullify every law. None are any good IMO.

  4. #4
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The way that they vote on bills and handle the business of the legislature it all violates the due process rights we have ... I nullify every law. None are any good IMO.
    The only "good" laws are redundant in that they simply restate the core of natural law -- do not steal.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 03-15-2016 at 02:39 PM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    OCforME quoted: “[I]t is the opinion of the court, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution that questions of law, and still less, questions of constitutional law, should be decided by the verdict of the jury, contrary to the instructions of the court.”
    (Bear with me, fellas. I'm gonna show off a little bit.)

    Do y'all know why the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is considered by government a "fighting right" (you have to invoke it, and keep invoking it)? It is because government only conceded as much as it felt it had to concede. It is not a "fighting right" because of any rational basis. It is a "fighting right" because that is as far as a fella named John Lilburne and the public got with it in the 1650's in England. The English government perceived it had to at least acknowledge that a man could not be compelled to testify against himself--or it would face the very real prospect of pitchforks and torches from the public who supported or were sympathetic to Lilburne. Notice that. Government didn't say, "Gee, its not fair to compel a person to testify against himself." It said, "OK, we'll concede this much, and that should shut up the masses who otherwise might rise up against us."

    Here is the alternative that devastates the government's position on the 5th Amendment. According to Leonard Levy in his Pulitzer-prize winning book, The Origins of the 5th Amemdment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination, the ancient Hebrew courts held that nothing the accused said could be used against him. Nothing. The defendant didn't have to invoke his right. There was no fannying-about over whether he was properly Mirandized. There was no extensive legal analysis (sic for sophistry) by the court about whether a defendant had willingly answered questions. Plain and simple: nothing the defendant said could be used against him. Nothing. That was total government recognition of a right.

    What the heck has that got to do with anything, Citizen?

    Just this: context.

    Here is where I show off a bit. I've got tons of time into English political history. If history shows anything, it shows the common people rising toward freedom, rising toward more and more rights. English political history from 43AD to the American Revolution is one long story of common people fighting for more and more freedom, more and more rights. There is a lot of see-sawing. There is a lot of backsliding. But, the overall picture is one long fight for freedom and self-determination across nearly eighteen centuries.

    Context.

    So, what is jury nullification about? Yes, it included OC's comment about the power of a jury to lay aside the law if an unjust outcome would result.

    But, it is bigger than that. It is about another barrier to government making up whatever laws it wants, criminalizing whatever it wants. If the jury thinks the law is unjust or tyrannical, it can ignore the statute and find the accused innocent.

    Context. This was a major milestone on the road to rising toward more and more freedom, more and more rights. John Lilburne was found not-guilty by all four of the juries that tried him for his life--despite the fact that in at least the last two trials he was plainly guilty of high treason (as defined by Oliver Cromwell's government).

    The judge OC quoted above is totally lying. Jury nullification is entirely consistent with constitutional government. How? Just this. Why have a constitution? The only reason for a constitution is to limit government. If you didn't want to limit government, no constitution would be necessary. Just elect or appoint a dictator and tell him to get on with it. Constitutions limit government. Or, more precisely, constitutions limit the actions of the individuals who populate government.

    Constitutional government.

    Limitations.

    The power of a jury to nullify a law does just exactly that--act as a limitation.

    And, is entirely consistent with constitutional government.


    PS: Google An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner. Read just Section I. I am not exaggerating that if you read just Section I, you will know more than 95% of Americans about the place of juries in a constitutional scheme.

    Here. I'll save you some time. This is the first google return:

    http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-15-2016 at 09:17 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.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Note: An error in my post was pointed out, so I'm editing to correct that error.


    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (According to Leonard Levy in his Pulitzer-prize winning book, The Origins of the 5th Amemdment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination, the ancient Hebrew courts held that nothing the accused said could be used against him. Nothing. The defendant didn't have to invoke his right. There was no fannying-about over whether he was properly Mirandized. There was no extensive legal analysis (sic for sophistry) by the court about whether a defendant had willingly answered questions. Plain and simple: nothing the defendant said could be used against him. Nothing. That was total government recognition of a right.

    Your post was an interesting read. Thank you.

    I have found another source that backs up your report of barring the use of a defendant's statements against him in ancient Hebrew courts.

    From a webpage describing how much of our current jurisprudence traces roots back to (or has parallels to) ancient Jewish courts we read this:


    A voluntary confession was not competent for conviction under Jewish law. The burden of proof is still on the State to establish that a confession, if given, was given freely, voluntarily, and intelligently. We require police officers to read the "Miranda warning" to an accused so the Court can determine if an admission was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made. If confession is made after Miranda is heard and understood, a confession can be admitted. It was not so in Jesus' day. Jewish law admitted no confession, believing the State could never rely on that which a person said from his own mouth.

    I will note that unlike a confession, there are certain crimes (such a blaspheme) which are committed only by what proceeds from the mouth of the accused. So while a confession to blaspheme would not be permitted, the words that constituted blaspheme would have come from the mouth of the accused, but would then be witnessed against him by those who heard the words.

    In any event, I suspect you'll enjoy reading the article at the link I provided. Here is one interesting aspect that differs from our modern judicial procedures:


    Another peculiar provision of Jewish law is of great importance, for a unanimous verdict of guilty resulted in acquittal of the defendant! This arose from the court's duty to protect and defend the accused. Mosaic law held that since some member of the court had to interpose a de-fense for the accused, a unanimous verdict of guilty indicated no one had done this, that there could only be a conspiracy against the accused, that he had no friend or defender. Such a verdict was invalid and had the effect of an acquittal.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 03-17-2016 at 06:49 PM. Reason: Correcting errors in my original post based on my errors in reading the materials I cited.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    piper: quote: I have found at least one source that claims...unquote

    from your own cite mate, quote: There follows a story told for years by one of my favorite judges (now deceased) who used to go from church to church and to my law school and Christian Legal Society meetings to tell us of "The Trial of Jesus" from a judge's point of view. quote


    therefore, your one source is nothing more than a fairytale contrived as a mythical story meant to entertain those believers who wish to be believe.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    [I]t is the opinion of the court, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution that questions of law, and still less, questions of constitutional law, should be decided by the verdict of the jury, contrary to the instructions of the court.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The hubris!!! Proves my point, again, that judges are not concerned for the law, let alone concerned for justice, but concerned only for precious their process and immunity from any accountability.

    As I am want to say "This is what happens when you depend on government to protect you from government".

    If ever seated on a jury I WILL keep in mind jury nullification; if it is a reasonable charge against a scum bag......... Justice; regular or extra crispy!!!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I would only vote guilty if the state had hard evidence of the crime alleged that irrefutably implicated the accused. If the state uses the "perp's" words in any way, brings forth circumstantial evidence in any way, appeals to emotion in any way, I will vote not guilty.

    Cops and prosecutors, enabled by their judge overseers, always take the lowest road to deprive a citizen of his life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately the learned amongst us have yet to cipher a way to hold to account, and severely so, a judge, such as the one I quoted above, for their unjust nitwittery.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    In the local rag, the Murkee Jourinal Sentinel, is a poll question on changing Wisconsin's method of selection of judges, between appointment and popular election.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Judges are more independent and less accountable if appointed? Judges are less independent and less accountable if elected? Aw heck, judges are less accountable.
    "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

  12. #12
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I would only vote guilty if the state had hard evidence of the crime alleged that irrefutably implicated the accused. If the state uses the "perp's" words in any way, brings forth circumstantial evidence in any way, appeals to emotion in any way, I will vote not guilty.

    Cops and prosecutors, enabled by their judge overseers, always take the lowest road to deprive a citizen of his life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately the learned amongst us have yet to cipher a way to hold to account, and severely so, a judge, such as the one I quoted above, for their unjust nitwittery.

    How about just the simple measure of "was anyone HARMED?" Not the "state" or a corporation...a REAL person. If not, then let'm walk.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (Bear with me, fellas. I'm gonna show off a little bit.)...
    An excellent post.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Correcting an error in my posts #6

    An error in my post #6 was pointed out to me. I have edited that post to correct my error, and noted the edit there. But since my edit materially changes the content and meaning of my post, I wanted to make sure it was clear I wasn't attempting to hide anything.

    In my original post #6, I claimed that ancient Jewish courts would allow a confession if the court determined the confession was freely given. That was an error that I made by mis-reading the material I quoted. My bad. And my apologies.

    I've updated post #6 to reflect the fact that all sources I've found confirm that ancient Jewish / Hebrew courts did not accept a confession as admissible.

    Apologies for posting clearly erroneous information. It was an honest mistake on my part, and I apologize for making that error.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    An error in my post #6 was pointed out to me. I have edited that post to correct my error, and noted the edit there. But since my edit materially changes the content and meaning of my post, I wanted to make sure it was clear I wasn't attempting to hide anything.

    In my original post #6, I claimed that ancient Jewish courts would allow a confession if the court determined the confession was freely given. That was an error that I made by mis-reading the material I quoted. My bad. And my apologies.

    I've updated post #6 to reflect the fact that all sources I've found confirm that ancient Jewish / Hebrew courts did not accept a confession as admissible.

    Apologies for posting clearly erroneous information. It was an honest mistake on my part, and I apologize for making that error.

    Charles
    +1. Well done.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    interesting three of citizen's posts were deleted as he pointed out using legitimate cites the alleged misinformation you posted from 'misreading' and misinterpreted' your own rebuttal material to his original post.

    now you have changed your original post w/o any perspective to any future public reader of this thread of what was the original erroneous material or what was specifically changed out of context...

    now, sorry for appearing critical and questioning your actions, but your action centers around the fact it is one of the worst examples of publication fraud i have seen.

    it is truly, truly, disappointing that an individual of your stature felt the need to stoop this low to maintain your credibility. some might see your actions as commendable but in truth, since you have obliterated your originally posted information which was pointed out incorrect information so its appears to your adoring public you are infallible.

    and if by accident, your confession of error post were to inadvertently get deleted...the infallible premise is maintained forever.

    just saying...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    now you have changed your original post w/o any perspective to any future public reader of this thread of what was the original erroneous material or what was specifically changed out of context...
    Both in post #6 (in both the body and the edit note) and my new post #14 I make clear that I had errors that I corrected. I accept full responsibility for those errors and have both corrected them and retained (in post #14) a record of what the error was. I preserved far more detail than one finds in typical corrections sections of professional publications such a newspapers and magazines.

    And so your complaints are without supportable basis, leading me to suspect some other motive.

    I will attempt to maintain civility by ending our conversation now.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 03-17-2016 at 09:33 PM. Reason: Shorte post for civlity sake
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    interesting three of citizen's posts were deleted as he pointed out using legitimate cites the alleged misinformation you posted from 'misreading' and misinterpreted' your own rebuttal material to his original post.

    now you have changed your original post w/o any perspective to any future public reader of this thread of what was the original erroneous material or what was specifically changed out of context...

    now, sorry for appearing critical and questioning your actions, but your action centers around the fact it is one of the worst examples of publication fraud i have seen.

    it is truly, truly, disappointing that an individual of your stature felt the need to stoop this low to maintain your credibility. some might see your actions as commendable but in truth, since you have obliterated your originally posted information which was pointed out incorrect information so its appears to your adoring public you are infallible.

    and if by accident, your confession of error post were to inadvertently get deleted...the infallible premise is maintained forever.

    just saying...

    ipse
    Don't forget...you can always read the changes in a post that has been edited.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    as mentioned...

    the corrections to your posts are not obvious whatsoever... could have been grammar, syntax...but we know that isn't the case, is it

    ipse

    added 2213L: btw...did you use citizen's cites from his deleted posts to discern you were incorrect?
    Last edited by solus; 03-17-2016 at 10:15 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Don't forget...you can always read the changes in a post that has been edited.
    truly...how might that be accomplished carolina?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I will attempt to maintain civility by ending our conversation now.

    Charles
    Ahhhh. Civility is a huge part of jury nullification--the topic of the thread. The king (government) cannot just make it up as he goes along and use violence to enforce his whim (incivility).

    Now, I do notice that nobody used crude, insulting language against you. So, I find it interesting you would imply incivility against a poster who, while calling you out for logical fallacy, avoided incivility.

    So, why do you accuse incivility against a poster who was not uncivil against you in a thread that was totally about civility--jury nullification--and totally about reducing the arbitrary and uncivil use of force by government?
    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.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Ahhhh. Civility is a huge part of jury nullification--the topic of the thread. The king (government) cannot just make it up as he goes along and use violence to enforce his whim (incivility).
    For the record, I am 100% supportive of both jury nullification and fully informing juries of their right to nullify if their conscience requires it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Now, I do notice that nobody used crude, insulting language against you. So, I find it interesting you would imply incivility against a poster who, while calling you out for logical fallacy, avoided incivility.
    Incivility takes many forms beyond crude language. False accusations, attacking man's integrity, imparting evil motives over simple disagreement, and using unwelcome forms of address, also constitute incivility. Many would suggest that being a spelling or grammar Nazi is also uncivil as one might discern from the fact we call them "Nazis".

    You know all of this.

    You also know that there are many ways to insult without using vulgarities.

    Some forms of incivility are expressly against forum rules. Some others are not. But a man as well read, and as intelligent as you are and hold yourself to be, knows that just because something isn't against the rules doesn't mean it is polite or decent.

    And since this thread is about Jury Nullification, rather than about how far we should be able to push indirect attacks on others, I will leave you as I have your colleague on this topic.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    truly...how might that be accomplished carolina?

    ipse

    My apologies...never looked at other peoples edits...guess we can only see our own. Sounds like that is something that we *SHOULD* be able to see...
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

Posting Permissions

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