The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It's Routine

[AngusThermopyle]

Can a juror hold the fact that a defendant refused to testify against him?
Can a juror deny an accused right to self-defense because he doesn't believe in it?
Can a juror vote to acquit someone of domestic violence because he believes that a husband has the 'right' to hit her?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?



[/ QUOTE ]

People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty.

People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right?

So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chaos ensues? lol No, what ensues is that prosecutors, the courts, and the police get the feedback and alter the way they do business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure. They're going to change the drug laws, the gambling laws, the prostitution laws and, best of all THE TAX LAWS! Can you imagine 'the people' realizing that they don't have to pay taxes because they can just acquit each other?

Come to think of it..............

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, that the current system is broken and all or even most of the bad laws are not going to be changed through the legislative process. More people should be aware of the power they have as jurors. Maybe if enough people were aware, we could start getting things changed at a grass-roots level, even if most of our professional politicians are corrupt, or are elitists, or pander for votes, or just don't care.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What right do I, as a juror, have to make law?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a citizen in a democracy it is supposed to be both your right and duty to be involved in making laws. The jury process is supposed to be a check to make sure that citizens do not essentially become powerless to legislators who word laws badly, or push laws through in times of panic, or to legislators of the past whose laws have sat dormant for decades but are still on the books because no one knows about arcane laws that were never repealed because they were never enforced. The US may be based upon a system of laws, but those laws must be written and interpreted and enforced by men and checks are necessary to ensure that the government is still run by for and of the people.

[ QUOTE ]
Certain laws might be ridiculous, in my judgment; but the way to change the law is through the legislative process

[/ QUOTE ]

And how often does it take someone convicted of an unjust law to bring it to light? The laws don't change simply because times change, there is a process involved. What happens to those charged in the interim while the legislature is out of session, what if the legislature has drifted from the will of the majority. Should we continue to convict people for 2, 4 or 6 years while proper adjustments are made through voting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or for 60 years, or for longer. Bad laws often just stay, and stay, and stay, and stay.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws?


[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to the alternative of being a slave to a law? Being bound by the words of people who are dead a hundred years? Do you really think chaos is going to ensue because unjust laws are not enforced? We are not talking about letting murderers and rapists go free here, we are essentially talking nonviolent offenses when discussing unjust laws.

[ QUOTE ]

The idea behind the justice system is that we try to administer justice by having laws that people know about in advance and therefor can avoid running foul of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, how many hours would it take for a layperson to familiarize themselves with enough legal jargon to be able to read and interpret the meaning behind laws? There are thousands of laws on the books, the law was meant to benefit people, not to be a hindrance requiring years of study to ensure compliance to the letter.

[bkholdem]

Ed Rosenthal Discusses His Marijuana Growing Conviction
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 05:18:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Here is the statement of Ed Rosenthal on his federal marijuana growing conviction today, for which he will be sentenced June 4. He is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, and possibly up to 40 years.

Statement of Ed Rosenthal on the Medical Marijuana Trial Verdict
January 31, 2003

"I am disappointed in this verdict for several reasons.

"This was an unconstitutional prosecution. It should never have come to trial.

"Once it did, I was not afforded a jury of my peers. They had to bring in 80 people to come up with 12 who would agree to set aside their beliefs on this issue.

"Even so, they would have acquitted me if they had been permitted to hear my story. But I did not get the chance in this trial to defend myself and explain my actions.

"Federal prosecutors made extraordinary efforts to block the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because the truth is that I was deputized by the City of Oakland to legally grow marijuana for medicinal use by sick or dying patients under California's Prop 215, the Compassionate Use Act, the law that is supposed to guarantee safe and legal access to medicinal marijuana.

"The City of Oakland showed courage in working to come up with a safe, open, and legal system to harmonize California's medical marijuana law with federal law. And I was acting as an official of the city, implementing their program to help patients.

"Had the jury known about the City's attempts to give immunity to their people, including me, it would have acquitted me today.

"The other victims of today's decision are patients -- people who are extremely ill or dying and who are soothed by medicinal marijuana -- because I am only one of many people that they are trying to put in jail for helping sick people, as allowed under our laws.

"For these reasons, we will be asking for a new trial. This verdict will not be allowed to stand.

"The federal government silenced my courtroom defense, but it can't silence the court of public opinion. The opinion of the American public is one of overwhelming support of medicinal uses of marijuana.

"The federal government needs to get this message.

"My case clearly demonstrates that it is time for a national debate on the issue of medical marijuana. California voted to make medical marijuana legal, but the federal government is trying to block that law. The federal government is choosing to prosecute and imprison individuals instead of working directly with the State of California and local cities to resolve the conflicts in medical marijuana law.

"Our elected officials must have the courage to discuss this issue publicly, and then resolve this conflict.

"Because helping sick people should never be a crime.

"For my entire family, thank you all for your support."

--Ed Rosenthal

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Can a juror hold the fact that a defendant refused to testify against him?
Can a juror deny an accused right to self-defense because he doesn't believe in it?
Can a juror vote to acquit someone of domestic violence because he believes that a husband has the 'right' to hit her?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a juror actually can, because it is impossible to read the mind of the juror.

Juries have the power to acquit, no matter what occurs. A judge cannot instruct a jury that it must find the defendant guilty, can he? So why should the judge and prosecution be able to pre-emptively remove jurors who might vote their conscience?

Anyway I think it really comes down to the question I posed for Howard Beale and Andyfox about whether they would have convicted a runaway slave under the Fugitive Slave Law. The answer to that question should clarify who believes in jury nullification and who doesn't, and who believes that the jury should just follow the law or use their own conscience.

I'm waiting with bated breath for their respective answers to that question.

[andyfox]

I said I thought you made a good case. I think there are times your morality should trump the law. We shouldn't put a man in jail for steeling if he steals, ala Jean Valjean, a loaf of bread to feed his family.

But, of course, this works both ways. Imagine I am on the same runaway slave jury and I believe the bible and God tells me (as many southerners argued in those days) that slavery of inferior races is the natural order of things. That equality of the races is wrong and a sin before God. Should I still be free to vote my conscience?

[andyfox]

Good post. I can see that a law is a collection of words and to apply the law rigidly in all cases, without considertaion of extenuating circumstances, can lead to injustice rather than justice.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I said I thought you made a good case. I think there are times your morality should trump the law. We shouldn't put a man in jail for steeling if he steals, ala Jean Valjean, a loaf of bread to feed his family.

But, of course, this works both ways. Imagine I am on the same runaway slave jury and I believe the bible and God tells me (as many southerners argued in those days) that slavery of inferior races is the natural order of things. That equality of the races is wrong and a sin before God. Should I still be free to vote my conscience?

[/ QUOTE ]

people who would do evil do not need to understand they 'have permission' to do it. they will do it regardless. it is tragic that good people are duped into believing they can not do good on a jury by being denied education about their right of jury nullification.

[AngusThermopyle]

So the juries who have acquitted the KKK and others because they 'used their conscience' are fine by you?