Patty

Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification

No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.

And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.

Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.

Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9

Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.

The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.

In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.

Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.

At Zenger’s trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that truth was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10

Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury’s right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury’s authority.

In the distant past, jurors were told the truth; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.

Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges “instruct” them as to what the law is.

Hogwash!

As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.

Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury’s right to nullify. It provides that “[i]n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.

At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government.

Patty

13 Year Old Armed With Ruger 10/22 Saves His Mother From Trespasser Thought to be on Drugs

This one is a GunSaveLives.net exclusive, you read it here first. I received an email from a reader, Jordan, who asked that we use only her first name to protect her privacy, along with the above photo about a harrowing incident in Gainesville, Texas last night. I reached out to her and spoke with her about the incident. The following is the account of events she conveyed to me during an interview I conducted.

"Last night we had a man on drugs wander into our yard. I was telling him to leave when he turned on me, threw his hat on the ground, and came at me.

Luckily, my 13 year old grabbed his Ruger 10/22. He did not have to fire. The [sight of the] gun stopped the man in his tracks and he turned and ran. During all of this my 15 year old daughter had called 911. The cops didn’t show until almost 8 minutes AFTER the man took off.

If my son had not done what he did, I have no doubt I would have been injured or killed along with my three kids. Proud of my boy. We are proud gun owners and always will be.

…Had we not had the gun, there would have been no way to protect ourselves and the cops didn’t seem too concerned about our situation. It shouldn’t have taken so long to get to us, we live six blocks from the police department!"

Rdjarhead Loc: Oklahoma

You have only seconds to save your life and the cops are only minutes away

Patty

:thumbup: Also it has been ruled that the police now have no obligation to show up unless they are under a specific duty. Like you are a criminal in their custody. Doesn't this seem a bit ass backwards to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
"In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints.

Loki Loc: Georgia

[quote=Patty]Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification

No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.

And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.

Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.

Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9

Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.

The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.

In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.

Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.

At Zenger’s trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that truth was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10

Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury’s right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury’s authority.

In the distant past, jurors were told the truth; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.

Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges “instruct” them as to what the law is.

Hogwash!

As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.

Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury’s right to nullify. It provides that “[i]n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.

At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government.[/quote]

Don't let Fido Hatfield read this; he will call it more Russian propaganda.

Patty

Im sure he will be along shortly. He seems completely infatuated with me. Lucky me huh? Although he does seem a bit attracted to you lately also. Hmmmmmm.
"Hes mine, all mine I tell ya"

Loki Loc: Georgia

You can have him. He mentions me when I haven't even said anything to or about him. Doubtless, he is starved for attention, which would explain the indiscriminate leg-humping.

Patty

Well that explains it. I thought that no one could be so stupid and he was just pulling my leg but after further reflection I believe your explanation is much more accurate.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

" It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law."

This is the key to it all right here. This is exactly what jury nullification is all about and the reason they do not want you to know. In a good many cases, the court knows the law is unconstitutional and yet they try to enforce it and send people to jail over it. If the people found out they can throw it out using jury nullification, then they are not going to tell you anything about it. In most cases, even if you ask about it they will throw you off the jury and send you packing.

They will try and tell you there is no such thing, but if you use it, there is nothing they can do about it and they know it. Use it and watch them release the accused fast. They cannot retry him and there is NOTHING they can do to you for using it. The court will more then likely be mad as hell with you, but there is still nothing they can do.

In point of fact, you are required to use it if the law is unconstitutional and someone life is in jeopardy. To put someone on trial for an unconstitutional law is so wrong that it demands to be righted. That is the reason we have jury nullification in the first place. It's there for our use and to make sure this government abides by the constitution also.

Patty

:thumbup: I wish everyone would read this.
P.H. is awesome and she is also a member here on the forum but I think she only drops in occasionally.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

This is her free newsletter and is always informative and accurate.
http://freedomoutpost.com/

semper-fi Loc: Corrupticut

[quote=Patty]Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification

No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.

And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.

Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.

Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9

Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.

The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.

In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.

Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.

At Zenger’s trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that truth was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10

Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury’s right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury’s authority.

In the distant past, jurors were told the truth; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.

Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges “instruct” them as to what the law is.

Hogwash!

As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.

Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury’s right to nullify. It provides that “[i]n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.

At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government.[/quote]

Patty, are you from ct.? If so where? I'm from Waterbury .

Patty

Im from Central PA. My sister is in Hartford though.