Slashdot Mirror

I dunno, if the judge is instructing me to decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent under laws that a duly-elected Congress and President have passed and signed-off on, I'd probably go what he asks. There's not much point to the whole democracy thing if we completely disregard the laws our elected officials put into place.

I dunno what the deal with Slashdot is. It seems like our answer to everything is jury nullification...

"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict." U.S. v. Thomas.

That's a crock.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay

"It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -- Constitution of the State of Maryland

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was well understood that a jury meant a panel of persons empowered to render judgment on both the facts and the law. The ignorance - or straight-out power grabbing - of later judges cannot remove this right.

(I also note that despite the erroneous statement you quote, the court did find the dismissing the juror was an error and remanded the case for new trial.)

but they can certainly (and should) prevent you from sitting on the jury if they feel your impartiality will be threatened by your personal issues.

There is a large difference between "having personal issues" that make one partial to a person involved in the case, and judging the law and finding it wanting.

The JRP formed in response to the case of Laura Kriho, a Gilpin County juror who was maliciously prosecuted after she was the lone holdout juror on a drug possession case. Kriho was convicted of contempt of court, after four months of deliberation by the judge, for failing to volunteer information about her political beliefs and knowledge of the Constitution during jury selection.

http://www.levellers.org/jrp/coa.opinion.htm

Some case highlights:

  Kriho did not mention the fact that, 11 years earlier, she had received a deferred judgment and sentence for possession of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Following entry of the judgment in that case, she had successfully completed two years probation and 40 hours of community service, after which the charges had been dismissed.

          She also was asked to give a routine biographical sketch indicating, among other things, her "special interests and hobbies" and to state "anything else" that would prevent her from being a fair and impartial juror. She provided particulars as to her marital status,
education, and employment, and various hobbies and interests. She did not mention the fact that she was a member of the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project, an organization that supports the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Nor did she voice any antipathy towards drug laws or their enforcement.

Following the mistrial and the release of the jurors, Kriho handed one of the other jurors a pamphlet outside the courthouse which purported to be sponsored by the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project and the "Fully Informed Jury Association." It was entitled: "True or False? When you sit on a jury, you have the right to vote your conscience."

  Thereafter, the People initiated this contempt action against Kriho pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107 and 18-1-104(3), C.R.S. 1998. The contempt citation alleged that she should be held in contempt for:

          (1) disobedience to an order of the court, (2)
          obstructing the administration of justice, and (3)
          committing Perjury in the First Degree, C.R.S. 18-
          8-502, a class 4 Felony, by lying under oath to
          8-502, a class 4 Felony, by lying under oath to
          the Judge and the attorneys.

  Approximately three months after the close of the evidence, the trial court issued a written order finding that two of the prosecution's charges -- disobedience to a court order and perjury -- had not been sustained. However, it found that Kriho had intended to obstruct the judicial process and that her actions had prevented the seating of a fair and impartial jury. On that basis, the court found her in contempt under C.R.C.P. 107 for obstructing the administration of justice and imposed a $1200 fine payable within one year. It is from this order that Kriho now appeals.

The jurors are supposed to and expected to vote based on the laws.

No they're not.

This is one of the biggest lies that Judges and Lawyers to this day try and convince jurors.

It's unfortunate that Judges aren't required to take an oath before instructing the Jury on legal matters.

Jurors are following the law - whether they or you know it or not, when they decide whether the Judge is being a cockhead, the law is stupid, or that dumb slut had it coming.

The jury is purely a finder of fact,

No they're not.

This is one of the biggest lies that Judges and Lawyers to this day try and convince jurors.

Jurors not only have the right, they have the duty to decide whether the Judge is being a cockhead, the law is stupid, or that dumb slut had it coming.

Next time you think Jurors are required to decide on facts, or don't have the ability to rewrite law from the box, I urge you to pay attention at the next Michael Jackson molostation case, or if ever OJ Simpson decides to remarry.

Pot increases the liklihood and acceptance to harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin. The medical literature has shown this time and time again.

I'd like you (the original poster) to point me in the direction of this "medical literature" that you are speaking of. Meanwhile, check out the link below. It's an article about the independent report made by the Institute of Medicine as commisioned by the White House Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. He initiated this on the pretense that it would finally show those Californians that there is no medicinal value to marijuana.

Not only did they find massive opposing data, but they also discovered that there is no such thing as a "gateway drug" (at least in the context of mj). Personally, it's much easier to argue that cigarettes are the "gateway". But then again, the same argument can be applied to breathing air, since 100% of all hard-core drug users first breathed air (that's the logic we're dealing with here).

http://www.levellers.org/iompr.htm