Mark, you are somewhat confused, based on your comments below. The fact is that most jurors today already know about "jury nullification". They already know they can "vote their conscience" in defiance of the instructions of the bench concerning what the law is. The idea has been abundantly presented in the media for more than a decade. Anyone who has caught episodes of /Ally McBeal/, /The Practice/, /Boston Legal/, /Law & Order/, or a host of other such programs that have discussed the idea during the episode, have already been "informed" to the extent that an instruction to the jury or a general public education campaign could do it.
That isn't enough. Most jurors come to court with a pro-prosecution bias. "If he isn't guilty they wouldn't be prosecuting him." Most prosecutions succeed by presenting the accused as a "bad guy", often on the basis of actions that have nothing to do with the charge, and the jury becomes willing to convict him of the crime of "wreaking", which sounds like something bad, and since he's a bad guy, he must be guilty of it, whatever it is. I know a lot of people who have been convicted of non-existent crimes. (Ed Heimlich was convicted of stealing his own money, for example.) Why do most tax protesters get convicted? Some of them do manage to get across to the jury that they sincerely believe there is no law that requires them to file or pay taxes. But that isn't enough. Most of the jurors just reason, "I don't care if the income tax is unconstitutional. They can put you in jail if you don't pay it, and I paid to stay out of jail, so if I had to, I'm not going to let him get away with not doing it." Why do most federal drug prosecutions succeed? Even if the accused somehow gets it across to the jury that the U.S. statute under which he is charged is unconstitutional, they just reason, "He's a bad guy. What difference does it make whether the feds or the state locks him up? The important thing is to get him off the streets." These cases are examples of what I mean by "voting one's conscience" operating to produce an unjust verdict, as a matter of constitutional law, as originally understood. The kind of lesson in law the jurors need is much, much deeper and more detailed than any simple notion of "conscience" can handle. The jury has to be made to understand, against their prejudices, not only that a charge is unlawful, but why that is important. That is typically a matter of days of legal argument, extensive briefs, and hours studying in a law library. There is no way a single, simple instruction or public information. Ideally, our public schools would give everyone the equivalent of at least one year of law school, but that isn't going to happen. The fact is, if jurors don't learn the law of the case while they are empaneled, they never will. And, for that matter, neither will judges, or the attorneys, or the press, or public observers, or anyone else. Mark Robert wrote: > John, > > > >>From my angle, we have the problem of extremely high conviction > rates right now. I don't believe we would see MORE guilty > verdicts from "vote-your-conscience" jury nullification. Frankly, > I don't think such a fear is reasonable regarding jury > nullification. Just how would a conviction-nullification work? I > mean, who would see that as nullification, when that's the status > quo? Or am I simply exaggerating? I don't think so. 98% > conviction rates are representative of the tragic state of > courtroom juries today. You think educating juries about > nullification would actually increase them? I don't. I think it > would drastically reduce them - and in effect castrate unjust > legislation. AFAIK, there is no other realistic mechanism to > reverse longstanding unconstitutional legislation. > > > > I agree with your position on law and authority in principle. But > even if constitutionality and authority were argued before the > jury, the jury could not vote down law or fire authority figures. > Technically, the law would still remain law and the asshole > authority figure would still remain the asshole authority figure > during deliberations, leaving jury nullification as the only > option. Surely you are not putting your faith in the judge to do > the acquitting (after hearing arguments of unconstitutionality > and/or non-authority)! I see no alternative but to place the > power squarely back in the hands of the people - and I see > education about nullification as a very good way to do that. > > > > -Mark > > > > > > _____ > > > > > There is in the ways positions are stated. One branch prefers the > language, "Vote > your conscience," and only seeks instructions to jurors that they > have the right > to judge the law as well as the facts in reaching a general > verdict. My branch > argues that formulation seems to approve of jurors ignoring the > law, or deciding > not to enforce laws they don't like, or even convict a "bad guy" > even if there is > no statutory foundation for it, or if the rights of the accused > has been violated > in the course of the investigation, prosecution, or the trial. > > My branch argues jurors have the moral and civic duty, like a > good judge, to bring > a verdict according to law, even if they disapprove of the law, > but also to be > able to decide what the law is and what it is not, and to detect > when the charge > is not authorized by a statute, or a statute by the applicable > constitution, or > when the court lacks jurisdiction, or when the rights of the > defendant have been > abused. There is no way they can do that unless they are either > experts in the > law, or hear all arguments of law made in their presence, read > the briefs, and > have the use of a good law library -- the same things the bench > needs to do his > job. Many cases involve legal issues on which none of the > participants are expert, > so it is a learning experience for everyone. > > >>You say my signature needs some clarification. Trouble is, as >>signatures go, it's already too long. Yet, I would like to see >>your briefest clarification added. > > > Argue law before jury or acquit. > Presume nonauthority; prove authority. > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
