Slashdot Mirror

As a Founding Father of the United States, he recognized the need for a REASONABLE patent and copyright system in order to make sure that authors and product creators were able to recoup the costs of creating their works. The patent and copyright system today rewards mostly corporations. Individual creators are left out. As a Founding Father of the U.S. he also stood for for individual right. This is something tht very few mainstream party affiliated politicians think about today. If we want to try to restore the protections of our right by voting, then we need to vote for members of alternative political parties such as the ones listed alphabetically below: Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/ [constitutionparty.org] Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/ [greenparty.org] Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/ [reformparty.org] Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/ [sp-usa.org] Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/ [veteransparty.us] Even though I am not a Christian, I prefer the Constitution Party. I can deal with looking at 10 Commandments posted in a court room, they will not jump out and shoot me. I can even stand still while leaders pray as long as I am not forced to join in. If you do not like the ideas put out by the Constitution Party, look at a party that fits what you believe in. Just don't fall for the bullshit spewed by the Democrat or Republican parties. We already know what they are about (taking bribes and serving their special interests). As another not, we can also judge the law as well as the facts. Visit http://www.fija.org/ .

Benjamin Franklin has always been at the top of my list of true heroes, even Einstein doesn't compare. No one in this day remotely compares to him as has been pointed out in the parent. He inspires the inventor and the revolutionary in me and I wish that people thought more of him than the fact he's on the 100 dollar bill. We should all take a good look at what he did, take one little piece of that and try our best to create that in our lives. For instance, he used to print revolutionary literature, so maybe we could do the same; printers are everywhere these days, and there are great topics that the general public should know about such as common law or that juries can judge the law, not just the accused or a million other topics. Ben would approve, I believe.

(By the way, check out http://www.fija.org/)

if you are not dismissed for that reason alone you just need to be ready to ask about "jury nullification" or tell the judge you are unable to fully follow his/directions on the law (tell the judge you learned in a civics class that you must not only judge the subject, but the law that is being applied as well)---that should get you dismissed fairly quickly based on what 2 other summoned jurors told me.

Just tell them that you're a "card carrying member" of the Fully Informed Jury Association, that should get your dismissed pretty quick.

However, I do have something to add: a link to FIJA, the Fully Informed Juror Association.

Basically, if you disagree with the law, as a juror, you do not have to decide based on the law. You can say "not guilty" even though the prosecutor has pictures of the accused taking a toke from a bong.

I went through the Navy and received eduaction in electronics. When I went back to civilian life, I found that employers wanted a college degree. I went to college to get the degree. I only got credit in phys. ed and communications simply because the courses were designed a bit differently. After about 3 years and several thousands of dollars, I got my degree. I work for about a year in the electronic field before my job was shipped to China. Most electronics engineering jobs are now moved to overseas. This is happening to all kinds of professions. Why should people spend tens of thousand of dollars in order get the right paperwork for a career only to see that effort wasted when the next round of outsourcing comes about? I am seeing the same thing that happened to the electronics industry happen to the computer industry. I am just glad that I do not have to pay back a student loan. If the American government wants to increase graduation rates, then it would do something about the flood of slave-made goods and services crossing our borders. In fact, something will give due to the high number of dollars that America bleeds each year. In America, a worker cannot support a house and pay living expenses on a dollar a day. How do we compete with slave labor except by becoming slaves ourselves. This is where America is headed no thanks to the U.S. government's refusal to do its job. http://www.fija.org/ Take back the power usurped by corrupt judges. http://www.lp.org/ Take back our freedoms that have been stolen by the goverment. http://www.constitutionparty.com/ Time to go back to a limited government where people are free.

A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)

Some states get it right:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)

the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)

Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.

Other related takes can be found here and here.

Myself, I like a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.

The concern for the US Supreme Court is to set precident such that long-term justice can be maintained. It is not so that a given case will have a just outcome (this is a dual task for the district judge and the jury).

The job of a judge isn't to promote a just outcome by any means. If you believe this is so and ever have to appear for jury duty there's a quick way to be dismissed from serving on a jury. When being questioned say that you not only believe in Jury Nullification but also believe in a Fully Informed Jury.

Our mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.

Er. Common Law jurisdictions in the european union like Ireland, England and Wales that the USA's law is (mostly, except for Louisiana) based on can all have jury trials (think Scotland might too, but their laws are a bit funny in general), going right back to the Magna Carta in 1215 (yes, the basis for our current legal system is rather older than the USA :-) )

AFAIK this includes, similar to the USA, the ability for a jury of one's peers to decide in a case that the law is at fault and overturn the law, but I'm not 100% sure there - I imagine that power is greater in the USA.

One of the reasons many Irish and British people are only leukwarm supporters at best of the EU is because we regard the Civil law jurisdictions of mainland europe as primitive and barbaric. Similarly, many europeans in Civil law jurisdictions regard us as primitive and barbaric because in their eyes Common Law basically amounts to "whatever the fuck those rosbif idiots think it is at any given moment" rather than "what the Big Book of Law says".

If you're a citizen of the USA, PLEASE be aware of your right to overturn an unjust law when you're on a jury (don't necessarily tell people you're aware of your rights there until you're already on the jury, though, or they'll get rid of you as fast as they possibly can!)
http://www.fija.org/

Making copyright violations a criminal offense might therefore be the first step in getting copyright law completely destroyed in Britain or Ireland.

The court needs to be abolished and replaced with Supreme Juries. Each case/review/whatever sees nine of us selected at random and flying out to Washington to deal with whatever the problem is.

This is unworkable if you want to maintain justice. At least judges are supposed to be knowledgeble of the USA Constitution, most citizens aren't nearly as knowledgeble. Having said that I am a strong believer in Jury Nullification and a Fully Informed Jury.

Mostly right, except for the part about the judges. Judges were usually part of the problem you're describing, not (generally) part of the solution. What you're describing is called jury nullification, and is the real purpose of the jury: to be a last test of a law before it is applied to an individual case. You can read more about this sort of thing here.

Mod parent up.
Chances are you have drug paraphernalia in your pocket, or within arm's reach. Matches, paper clip, tin foil.
I don't like meth, or meth users, and I wasn't there.
One common bit of paraphernalia associated with meth users is a hypodermic needle. By outlawing clean needles, the US government created the AIDS epidemic . Most AIDS cases in the US can be traced to shared needles.
Every one who serves on a jury needs to understand their obligation to nullify bad laws, or bad cases. fija
That is one of the checks and balances of our legal system, derived from the magna charta.

And if the Court fails to declare it unConstitutional, you and I have a duty not to convict people in trials.

I find people's faith in the Supreme Court laughable. The Court hasn't exactly acted as a guardian of liberty in its history, and you can find all sorts of questionable decisions (Plessy vs. Ferguson, anyone? How about Dred Scott?)

Sorry my comment can't be longer, but I have to report to jury duty for a witch trial.

Just be sure to read this first.

Also, a judge can turn a verdict from guilty to not-guilty, but can not override a jury's acquital.

the Sixth -
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This is dead. Supreme court has ruled you DO NOT have the right to a jury trial if the sentence has a maximum of six months, PER CHARGE.
Combined with the patriot act, and the inability to confront witnesses I'd say the sixth is toast.

The Third -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The patriot act shredded what was left of this.

Add to this the fact that Juries are NOT informed that they are allowed to judge the MERITS of the LAW as well as a person's guilt or innocence.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture...

What did he do?

He played chess in Yugoslavia.

I see. Innocent. That was easy. See, this is why jury nullification is good.

Visit <a href="http://fija.org">here</a> and <a href="http://jurorsrule.com">here</a>.

They're avoiding criminal trials, because at that point it would bring in a jury, as you said. Which also brings in jury nullification. They don't want to open that can of worms. The United States becoming aware of that again would certainly spell the doom of a lot of the stupid laws they prosecute people on right now.

See the American Jury Institue/FIJA page for more info. We need juries that also decide whether the laws are valid, not just whether they were broken. That is the whole reason we have juries and not 'Star Chambers.'

Our mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience, sense of justice, and on the merits of the law.

Our concept of liberty is a somewhat subtle and contradictary thing. It involves tolerance of low-level civil disobediance, basic distrust of all forms of government and law enforcement, and most of all, the understanding that the only true guarantee to liberty is in the Bill of Rights and it's fair interpretation by the courts.

No.

The only true guarantee of liberty is for people -- every one of us, or enough of us to outvote the sniveling scum who bend over for tyranny -- to stand up for it. If you don't vote, you cannot expect the courts to be any good, since elected officials appoint the judges. If you squirm your way out of jury duty, you give up your most potent right of review over the acts of law enforcement and other arms of the government, in exchange for temporary convenience.

Freedom is no more a gift from judges and lawyers than it is a privilege handed out by kings. Freedom is ours by our nature, as long as we care to defend it.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. No, make that: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use in that order.

If so, I hope the jury is fully informed.

Trials are also judged by humans.

Judges themselves, by and large, come from a background as lawyers -- professional members of the theatre, so to speak. They're also human beings, and despite their best intentions to be fair I suspect that many of them automatically give greater credence to the arguments more eloquently presented... if only out of professional respect. I'm not asserting that there's a concious bias (though there might be), just that it's extremely difficult for someone skilled in a particular field to be unbiased in deciding between the arguments presented by someone similarly skilled and someone of lesser ability.

Your point might hold true for jury trials, but what you're speaking of is jury nullification, which is generally suppressed by the presiding judge who instructs jurors that they are only to apply the law as presented to them (by the judge) and not consider how equitable or just that law is. Defense attorneys in many places are actually forbidden to raise the question of the propriety of the law to the jury in their arguments. I believe the jury does have not only the right but also the duty to judge the law as well as the persons charged under it, though. The Fully Infomed Jury Association has much material on this.

All of this is getting rather far afield though; I'm an American and just by virtue of statistics I suspect you're not a Canadian... so what we each have to say is likely colored by the biases of the systems we each live under.

That's what jury nullification is for.

the parent of this post is talking about jury nullification, which you can read about in depth at:

Fully Informed Jury Association

Would you convict this guy? I say not guilty!

While you claim to be a lawyer ... you state that case law is law ... but it is NOT.

What case law is, is a judges' opinion on the current case in front of him at the time. This is precisely why we have several layers of appeals courts.

Now, many lawyers USE prior arguements ("case law") to bolster their pleadings/arguements, the court does NOT need to recognize them. In fact, since we have many Curcuits of appeal, there have been times when they don't provide the same interpretation of the same law (real law, not "case law"). The short of it is, that judges use "case law" to help them decide what decision to make, and giving the appearance of applying the law equally.

In fact, there are times when a jury can vacate a (real) law by using "jury nullification". For more info on that go to: Fully Informed Jury Association. PS, judges can do this as well, but rarely do so for political reasons.

The appearance of law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken. - Gangs of New York.

It doesn't even matter if the prosecutor has shown guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's still the jury's decision to convict or not. And that descision can be based upon whether a law is just or not.

Exactly, it's called "jury nullification". Unfortunately as I understand it lawyers can't argue that defense or present it as an option to the jury.

Some interesting facts about jury nullification: http://www.fija.org/FIJA%20FACTS.htm

Unfortunately it was also ruled that judges don't have to tell juries this and in fact can tell them the exact opposite, that the case has to be decided only on the facts in front of them. Some judges have even taken to jailing juries who acquit in ways they don't like.

Visit FIJA for more info.

I don't think they often have juries on this sort of thing, but (going offtopic) I think some cases of interest to slashdot readers would have juries. If you're interested in jury nullification, check out theFully Informed Jury Association. Note that they attract a lot of interest from, shall we say, fringe groups (of whom we might be as well). However they do a good job of staying on their message.

I assume you had the case thrown out, or at least caused a hung jury verdict? (Fully Informed Jury Association)

In order for this to happen, however, the jurors need to some how be informed of this constitutional right. Which might not be easy, but it is certainly possible.

I strongly encourage anyone reading this to read the essay linked above and then go to the FIJA page to find out more.

This is the scariest thing I've heard in a long time. If I ever get called, I'm gonna do all sorts of research, and to hell with anyone if they think I'm 'biasing' myself. If I'm a juror, I've got a duty to Justice, not to the judge, and not to the lawyers. That means getting informed about everything I can, including to the laws actually on the books, not just the law 'as explained to you by the bench'. It is the duty of the judge to present the evidence of the case fairly to the jury, but I'll be damned if I let anyone else interpret the law for me -- that's my job. And if I think, under my own interpretation, that the law is unfair, I'll invoke my rights and acquit.

Here's a quote, in case you find my opinion misguided:

[I]f they can say upon their oaths that they know the law better than the court does, they have the right to do so, but before assuming so solemn a responsibility, they should be sure that they are not acting from caprice or prejudice . . . but from a deep and confident conviction that the court is wrong and that they are right. Before saying this upon their oaths it is their duty to reflect, whether from their habits of thought, their study and experience, they are better qualified to judge of the law than the court.

Schnier v. People, 23 Ill. 17, 30 (1859), quoted in Howe, Juries as Judges of Criminal Law, 52 Harv. L.Rev. 582, 611 (1939)

You ask where it says that nullification is a right.

here is a court filing which includes the following informative paragraphs.

[CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR JURY NULLIFICATION:

The Constitutions of Maryland (Art. XXIII, entire), Indiana (Art. I, sec. 19), Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16), and Georgia (Art. I sec. 1, para. 11, subsec. A), currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law"; that is, to nullify the law. For example, the Georgia Constitution says: "In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial...and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts." Attorneys in Georgia and Indiana are able to request nullification instructions from the judge to the jury and generally receive them, and are sometimes able to argue the law. Twenty states currently include jury nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases: Alabama (Art. I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art. II, sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. I, sec. 6); Delaware (Art. I, sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, sec. 4); Mississippi (Art. 3, sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, sec. 6); New York (Art. I, sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Art. I, sec. 7); South Carolina (Art. I, sec. 16); South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, sec. 19); Texas (Art. I, sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 3); Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 20). Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, "as in all other cases." [Source: Alan W. Scheflin, "Jury Nullification: the Right to Say No", Southern California Law Review, 45, p. 204 (1972). This list has been updated to 1996.]

When there is division amongst the states on an important issue, trial judges often look to federal authorities for guidance, and such is instructive in this case. Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Sands, Siffert, Loughlin & Reis, Instruction 4-2) suggests that juries should be told that it is their "duty to acquit the defendant" if they harbor a reasonable doubt, however, rather than instruct juries that they have a corresponding "duty to convict," i.e., "must" convict if they are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the treatise recommends that juries be advised that they "should vote to convict: if the government has carried its burden (leaving a jury to conclude that it has the authority to nullify even in the absence of a reasonable doubt) [and our own federal district courts agree on this prerogative of the jury, see also, e.g., United States v. Will L. Dawson, and Derrick Termail Willis, Criminal Cause Numbers: IP 95-0064M-01-02, citing approvingly Beaver v. State, 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118 (1957) to the effect that "Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides that 'in all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.' However, jurors should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not act arbitrarily, capriciously, upon a whim or prejudice.] While logic would seem to dictate that a corollary obligation be imposed on jurors, it is reversible error to charge that the jury must explain their doubts ever since the ordeal of Edward Bushell and the Penn jury hereinabove.

The argument may or may not be persuasive to you that it is right, the listing of state constitutional clauses explicitly answers your question. Yes, jury nullification is recognized in law as a right of the people.

Now the question remains on the federal level whether it is a right. But rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized. Limitations on rights and governing powers are granted by the US Constitution. So now that we've established that nullification *does* exist as law and is a right of the people, does the US Constitution eliminate that right?

Now I ask you, where is it written?

From The Juror's Handbook as published by Fully Informed Jury Association

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

The power of the Jury to judge both the facts of the case at hand and the law itself was widely recognised and indeed lauded by the founders of this nation. I've got some documentation on it, but don't really feel like looking further at the moment. I'm sure others on this thread will.

From The Juror's Handbook as published by Fully Informed Jury Association

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

The power of the Jury to judge both the facts of the case at hand and the law itself was widely recognised and indeed lauded by the founders of this nation. I've got some documentation on it, but don't really feel like looking further at the moment. I'm sure others on this thread will.

I agree, granting "personhood" to artifical created corporations is obscene, it just is. Pure scam, top to bottom.

Your #2-this is the reason for the weird "justice" system we have in part. In the US at least, ALL higher level appointed, and most of the elected, judges have gotten there because they have played ball for their entire careers with one of the two controlling private criminal cartel political gangs that have seized control of the government and run the government as a for-profit ongoing criminal eneterprise. In other words "the fix is in". You don't get to be a high level judge without being a gang member. Pick your flavor, crips or bloods, two gangs, no difference except in what criminality they specialise in. Bribery and blackmail rulez the so called "justice" system.

Here's asome relevant links for anyone to checkout

Skolnick's Report,CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO CLEAN UP THE COURTS. check out a guy who's helped put federal judges in the slammer

Jail 4 Judges website, see what you can do to help put crooked judges away

Fully Informed Jury Association, you as a juror have MORE power than the judge, you can actually rule on the law itself as a juror, but "they" don't want you to know your rights as a juror

George Gordon School of Law, Biblical, Common, Constitutional -check it out, catch his radio show

Under his situation, where he is currently at liberty but will begin a prison sentence soon, how difficult would it be for him to put himself beyond the reach of the criminal justice system?

For myself, if I were on the jury, I would have used some of the powers described at FIJA to ensure that he received a maximum of 6 months in prison (assuming that I believed in his guilt and I agreed with the law, which I probably wouldn't).

However, assuming that members of the jury were duped or otherwise misled into this unreasonable sentence, how easy is it to leave and where should he go? Is Brazil the best destination (since they lack an extradition treaty)?

I would like to know this, for the day when these sentences are doled out for Kazaa users.

And speeding tickets don't let you have a jury trial, anyway

Article 3, section 2:

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

6th Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

7th Admendment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Obligatory bleeding-heart, civil liberties plug.

I got called to pay my "voting tax" next week (Jury Duty), and I would dread being on a case like this. While common sense would have me acquit on the basis that a broad "patent" like this is a mockery of the Office, and that even if eBay were abusing it with intent, I'd still not have much sympathy for this guy -- it's still the law, and I'd still have to vote according to what the law says, not what it means (since laws are no longer by the people -- if you need a lawyer to explain a law, there's something WRONG!).

Actually, that isn't true. You don't have to vote according to what the law says. You need to read up on jury nullification! The Fully Informed Jury Association is a good place to start: Jurors' Handbook

Both of the above statements are wrong. The Jury does not have the power to have a law re-examined or repealed by issuing a verdict. However, the Jury DOES have the power, and the right, to find a defendent "Not Guilty" for any reason. Judges and Attorneys don't really like this, and Judges will usually try to dismiss Jurors if they express disagreement with the law as written before the trial, but once the Jury issues a Not Guilty verdict, they're pretty much stuck with it.

This actually happens, too. The most famous case in which the Jury blatantly refused to apply the law was the trial of William Penn for sedition in London in 1670. The Magna Carta reserved the right of conviction to Juries only, and a few brave men withstood imprisonment and starvation in the face of an angry judge trying to force them to change their verdict. The jurors, however, would not relinquish their right under Common Law to decide the verdict, and would not find a man guilty for peacefully holding a religious assembly, Conventicle Act or not.

William Penn later came to America, and founded Pennsylvania. He advocated the idea that a panel of Juror-peers would be the final arbiter of the law, and this was encoded into the U.S. Constitution and Law in this country. The institution of the Jury as the final check/balance on the Government has been eroded over time in this country, but there are efforts to bring it back. The Fully-Informed Jury Association is one organization which seeks to educate Jurors of their rights, responsibilities, and powers, as well as restore their political function. Common Sense Justice is an organization in South Dakota with a FIJA amendment on the state election ballot this fall. Read up on Fully-Informed Juries, and if you are called to serve as a Juror, take your rights and responsibilities seriously.

The history behind it has something to do with a jury not convicting someone in England for not being part of the STATE religion or something like that. The gov't starved them for many days and tossed them in jail, but they never convicted...and that right (to not convict based on merits of the law) has been long established.

It was used many times in the days of prohibition...an many claim it had a huge role in reversing prohibition.

Here is some more info...Or do a Google search for a whole crap-load more...

http://civilliberty.tqn.com/msubjury.htm

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/FIJA.History. html

http://www.fija.org/

I'd still have to vote according to what the law says, not what it means

Well, the law should just be common sense written down.

No matter what the judge says, you only have to vote your conscience.

If you think the law is badly written or not suitable to society any more your responsibility as a juror (and peer to the defendant) is to not even let it get to the penalty phase.

If you're interested in being acquitted, check out FIJA, an organization dedicated to informing us of our rights as jurors to vote innocent if we feel the law is wrong or being misapplied. What if no jury voted guilty in DMCA cases?

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." If you are on trial for breaking such a law, I hope your jurors are fully informed regarding nullification. Jurors sit in judgment of the law as well as the case itself. Your vote in the jury box is quite likely more powerful than the one you cast in November.

REGARDLESS of whether or not the individual did, knowingly or not, break the law.

http://www.fija.org/

Bob-

That was the case cited immediately after where I stopped quoting. The full quote was:

However, during the next century, judges began chipping away at this vital and fundamental right of free citizens, thereby transferring citizen power to themselves. The biggest "chip" or usurpation took place in 1895, when in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., a bitterly split decision by our Supreme Court held that failure of the judge to remind the jurors of their powers was not a basis for mistrial or appeal. That was the green light for trial judges to go mum on the topic, and they did.

The case dealt with a possible mistrial or appeal solely on the basis of whether the jury was instructed of their right to nullification. Thus the ruling essentially stated, "It is not required to declare a mistrial or grant appeal on this basis." However, as is unfortunately too often the case, this narrow negation is wielded as a directive. It is a classic case of "everything not required is prohibited."

You may be technically correct in a pedantic sense. The Court may simply exercise their judicial power "as if" the law is unconstitutional when they decide "who wins" the decision.

No, I'm correct in a legal sense. The legal system described in the constitution set juries up to be the arbiter of whether laws were proper, not the judges. From The Fully Informed Jury Association:

John Adams said it so well in 1771 that the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) put his words on a coffee mug: "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy".

President Thomas Jefferson in 1789 told Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

And Noah Webster, who wrote his original 1828 dictionary in order to preserve the integrity of the language of the Constitution, defined "petty jury" as "...consisting usually of twelve men [who]...attend courts to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions".

A detailed historical analysis of jury veto power, also called jury nullification of law, appeared in the Yale Law Review in 1964. It held that "The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge's instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted."

However, during the next century, judges began chipping away at this vital and fundamental right of free citizens, thereby transferring citizen power to themselves.

Whenever a judge instructs a jury that their mandate is not to agree or disagree with the law, but merely to determine if the defendant violated it; whenever a judge or prosecuriter asks a juror during voire dire if they would have a problem with applying the law even if they disagree with it; they are violating the intent of the Constitution. Juries, not judges, are supposed to be the check on the legislative and executive branches.