The document is on the web at
http://tinyurl.com/mikejurynullificationwhich points to https://free-al-zeidi.tripod.com/jury_nullification.doc |
Jury NullificationJury Nullification is when a juror or a jury follows their conscience and decides the person on trial should not be convicted of the crime even if they are guilty, because the law or the way the law is enforced is unjust, immoral, or unfair. And thus the jury “nullifies” the law.Fully Informed Jury AssociationThe main group that preaches “Jury Nullification” is the Fully Informed Jury Association or FIJA. Their website is:http://fija.org Jury TrialsMagna CartaThe American tradition of jury trials goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215 when the people of England demanded that anybody who was punished by the king for a crime be given a jury trial.Bill of Rights - 6th AmendmentThe Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights gives Americans the right to a jury trial. It was watered down by the Supreme Court which said it only applies when you are accused of a crime that is punishable by more than 6 months in jail.As a result almost all city and county crimes have sentences of 6 months or less, because a judge can then convict a person without a jury getting in his way. Notice that in the Arizona Constitution it doesn’t say “ALL criminal prosecutions” like it does in the 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I suspect the 14th Amendment requires Arizona to give people a jury trial in ALL criminal cases like the 6th Amendment says. Sixth 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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law … Arizona ConstitutionArticle 2, Section 24In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed …Article 2, Section 23The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons. In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict. In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six, and the number required to render a verdict, shall be specified by law.Jury ConvictionsTo be convicted of a crime ALL the jurors must vote for a conviction.Any single jury can cause a mistrial and all the jurors voting to acquit will set the person free. Over the years the state has watered down the number of jurors required from 12 to 6 to make it easier for the government to convict people. Jury Nullification – HistoryThe American tradition of jury nullification goes back in history to the English trial of William Penn who was put on trial in 1670 for preaching Quakerism.Penn admitted he was guilty of the charge, but the jury refused to convict him because the law was unfair. The judge ordered the jurors to be jailed till they voted to convict Penn. They refused. On appeal it was ruled the jurors have the right to judge both the facts of the case, and the morality of the law, and thus jury nullification became a part of British Constitutional law, which our American laws are based on. To my knowledge there is no written law such as A.R.S. xxx or USC xxx which says that jurors have the right to nullify laws, but the right of jury nullification is based on this history of case law. Jury Nullification – Is it legal?What can a judge do to you when you think that the law is unjust, unfair or unconstitutional and you as a juror vote to acquit a person you think is guilty?Absolutely nothing!!!! A judge is powerless to sanction the jury in any way. The jury is not required to give any reason at all for its decision which cannot be appealed by the prosecution to a higher court because of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution that says a defendant is prohibited from being tried more than once for the same crime. Again to my knowledge there is no written law such as A.R.S. xxx or USC xxx which says that jurors have the right to nullify laws, but the right of jury nullification is based on case law history which goes back to English law when America was a colony. Jury Nullification – Can you lie to the judge to get on the jury?While you have every right as a juror to vote to acquit a person you consider guilty because you think the law is unfair or unjust you can get into trouble if you lie to the judge about your views or break other rules.“Parenthetically, we should note that potential jurors are typically subject to questioning before being chosen for a jury, in a process called voir dire. A juror who can be shown to have lied during this process, perhaps by concealing his views about the laws at issue, can be subsequently charged with a crime, although it won’t affect the verdict rendered in the original case” Jury Nullification – Does a judge have to tell you about your right to nullify the law?The government seems to hate jury nullification. And for good reasons. A juror who thinks a government tyrants law is unjust, unfair or immoral can nullify the law.In Arizona judges are told NOT to inform you about your right to nullify a law and to acquit a guilty person because you feel the law is immoral, unjust or unfair. “In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial.” Some historical casesWilliam Penn - Bushel's CaseBy the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushel's Case involving a juror on the case against William Penn.Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd", and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with. This series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification. The particular case is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey) in London. John Peter Zenger TrialThe most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."Fugitive Slave ActIn the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act."Jury nullification" was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Liquor ProhibitionDuring the Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time. This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment.Some unjust and unfair lawsArizona’s war on Latinos – SB 1070Arizona has a number of laws which seem to have been intentionally passed to run all of the Latinos out of Arizona.Even if we assume the laws are constitutional the problem is they are selectively enforced against Latinos. Sheriff Joe’s goons raid businesses that employ large number of Latinos, such as hotels, restaurants and construction companies and go over their records with a fine tooth comb in an attempt to arrest and deport as many Latinos as possible. Or Sheriff Joe’s goons raid areas which Latinos hang out in looking for work and stop every person with brown skin and make them “prove” they are not a criminal. In all of these cases it would be a good idea for a jury to nullify the laws, because even if the laws are “constitutional”, they are selectively enforced against Latinos. Also many of these laws have draconian sentences which are unjust and unfair, which is another good reason for a juror to nullify the law. California 3 Strikes LawAfter California passed it’s 3 strikes law in 1994, a man in Redondo Beach was arrested for stealing a single slice of pizza.Because of the draconian sentences required by the law he was effectively sentenced to life in prison for stealing a single slice of pizza. Most people agree that stealing is wrong. But most people would also agree that sentencing a person to life in prison for stealing a single slice of pizza is immoral, unfair and unjust. This is a good example of when it is a good idea for a jury to nullify a law because of the unjust punishment the laws requires. Yes, the man was a petty criminal for stealing the single slice of pizza, but the punishment of life in prison is immoral and unjust. Arizona DUI lawsDUI laws are supposed to prevent people who are intoxicated on liquor or drugs from driving on the road and being a danger to other people.But the Arizona DUI laws are unfair, because they are used to arrest people who are not intoxicated for the crime of driving while intoxicated. A person who is under 21 years old who is not drunk is considered automatically guilty of DUI if they have any microscopic trace of alcohol in their body. A 16 year old who weighs 200 pounds and drinks one beer is consider legally guilty of DUI because of his age, while a 21 year old 200 pound adult who drinks one beer is not guilty of DUI. That is unfair because the law is selectively enforced. A stone cold sober person who smoked a marijuana cigarette two days ago and tests positive for marijuana metabolitestoday is considered guilty of DUI in Arizona despite the fact the person is not intoxicated at all. That is unfair because you are arresting a person who is not intoxicated for the crime of driving while intoxicated. In both of these cases the person accused of the crime would be technically guilty, but because the law is unjust because it punishes a stone cold sober person for driving while intoxicated it would probably be a good idea for a jury to nullify the law and declare the people in both cases to be innocent. Medical Marijuana DUI arrestsIn Arizona, despite the fact that Arizona’s medical marijuana laws say a medical marijuana patient can’t be charged with DUI for testing positive for having marijuana metabolites in their body the police are still arresting medical marijuana patients who are stone cold sober for DUI.In this case corrupt police officers are arresting medical marijuana patients for imaginary crimes; in fact their supervisors are probably ordering them to make these false arrests for imaginary crimes. On top of that the prosecutors who should know better are attempting to convict these medical marijuana patients for imaginary crimes. And even worse the judges, who should know better, are allowing these arrests for imaginary crimes to be prosecuted, instead of dropping the charges. Again this is an excellent case for the jury to nullify the law and vote to acquit. The “War on Drugs” is unconstitutional???The 10th Amendment says that any power not given to the Federal government in the US Constitution is reserved for the people and the states.Because of the 10th Amendment when the Federal government wanted to outlaw liquor, the Feds had to pass a constitutional amendment giving the Feds the power to ban liquor. Uncle Sam outlawed liquor the constitutionally correct, legal way and passed the 18th Amendment which gave the Federal government the power to ban liquor. That was a dismal failure and the Prohibition was repealed with the 21st Amendment. Just like there is no clause in the US Constitution giving the Federal government the power to ban liquor, there has never been any clause in the Constitution giving the Feds the power to outlaw marijuana, heroin or any other drug. If Uncle Sam wants to outlaw marijuana, heroin and other drugs to do it the legally and constitutionally correct way it must pass a constitutional amendment giving the Feds the power to regulate drugs. Something which hasn’t been done. If you are a juror you should vote to acquit any person arrested for victimless drug war crimes because the entire “war on drugs” is unconstitutional. Despite the fact that a constitutional amendment has not been passed allowing the Feds to engage in their “war on drugs” the Feds say they can do almost anything under the sun based on the Interstate Commerce Clause which is refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. That is how Uncle Sam justifies the current “war on drugs”. A good number of respected legal scholars disagree with that. Their logic is that you have some marijuana in Arizona you MIGHT export that marijuana to California and therefore your marijuana MIGHT affect interstate commerce, so the Feds can make marijuana illegal. Laws and StuffU.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;5th AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.10th AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people18th AmendmentSection 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. … Arizona DUI/DWI Laws – Medical Marijuana – Prop 203 – ARS 36-2801I believe Arizona's DUI/DWI laws are among the strictest in the nation and if even a microscopic trace of marijuana is detected in your body you are consider guilty of drunk driving according to ARS 28-1381 and ARS 13-340128-1381.A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstance Medical Marijuana – Prop 203 – ARS 36-2801But Prop 203 which is Arizona's medical marijuana law in ARS 36-2802.D, clearly says if you are a medical marijuana patient you cannot be arrested for DUI because you have marijuana metabolites in your body:ARS 36-2802.D Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment. |