Jury Nullification in the Court System

A few weeks ago, I had Jury duty. When in Voir Dire, I was surprised (well, kind of) at the reaction of the Judge, The prosecution, and the other Jurors behind me.

I was also surprised that ATS mods deleted the post just because it was in the introductory forum and wasn't a 100% introduction. Jeeze.

Anyway, we got to a point in the questioning where the prosecution asked, "Do you understand that you are here to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, based solely on the facts?"

Everyone said "Yes". Except me.

I said, "Are you talking to me? Because I DO NOT understand the question because there is a third option: Not guilty based on our interpretation of the justice of the law the defendant is being charged with."

The prosecution stared at me with mouth open, not sure what to say. The judge said, "What was that? What are you asking?"

I replied "I'm talking about unjust laws. Can the prosecution please explain Jury Nullifi---"

Judge, "NO! She can not do that right now! Prosecution, please carry on with Voir Dire"

At which point the prosecution continued, "Do you understand that you are here to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, based solely on the facts?"

To my dismay, but not to my surprise, every juror candidate in a uniform drone responded: "Yes".

I'm writing about this because I learned about Jury Nullification from this site a year or two ago, and thought I should give my first hand experience that it is real and it is actively being blocked by Judges in the court system. I knew saying this would get me out of the case. I simply can't afford to spend a week on Jury duty for $15 a day!

If you DO want to practice getting rid of unjust laws then you CAN'T mention it during Voir Dire. You have to tell them what they WANT to here, and then take your stance as a "Stealth Juror".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_juror

reply to post by WhatAreThey


Well, I guess if it is your Constitutional right then, go for it!
I am not surprised that the jury had no idea or care of jury nullification.
Plus nullification could mean city, county, state, Etc. money lost if given only a 33 percent chance.
It is not 50/50 like they'd like all to believe.

What is interesting is there are only two choices. It presumes the one side or the other will win because they were best - like a tennis match. The problem is, when people are confronted with absolutes, the work to fit the "evidence" of what is presented to them to one of the polarized acceptable answers even if the match isn't won by either side in a convincing fashion.

If a jury was INFORMED that it was allowed a couple of more options the entire process would be far more fair. One extra option is to void the law that is being contested through nullification: case law is made by jury, case law should be voided by a jury as well. The other option is to to say both sides failed to make a case. While many feel "not guilty" is the latter option, it is not. A hung jury is one that just can't agree on one side or the other and quits, but if those same people were given the "if no side makes a compelling case you may abandon you post with no penalty," the system would be entirely different.

Option to quit, would make prosecutors think long, very long, and hard about taking pot smoking cases to court, and every other nonsensical case that is being done to win points, exact revenge, or raise revenue by fining people and tossing them in jail.

What we have is not a trial of life and circumstance, but a trial of company policy where everyone is bound by language that renders them nothing more then a rubber stamp. Fear rules the room, honor and truth are NOT ALLOWED in the room at all, and everyone HATES being there. If there is a hell, our judicial system is the model for it. +

Interestingly, what you have experienced is PRECISELY what the entire premise of the juror system was for.

"A jury of your peers" was not intended to mean "A jury of servants beholden to the state or judge's concepts of justice."

I cannot belabor this point at the moment. However, the court records MUST reflect your exchange at that moment... but I bet you they don't! Don't ask to see the transcript... as that would be asking to be targeted by resentful autocrats.... one's who have access and dominion over many aspects of your 'civil' life.

Judges might stand at the brink of powerlessness if Jury Nullification becomes a common knowledge in certain socially troubled areas. Even the media is afraid (as in FEAR) of discussing this.... ever see any layman's articles about this? This is not something the masters of law want us to be questioning. So much so that their reaction to it's mention in court is consistently overbearing and bombastic. And nearly every trail attorney will coyly defer and hem and haw when pressed to comment on it.

Can you imagine how many people would go un-fined, or not imprisoned (for profit mostly), if juries weren't continually indoctrinated to believe that they have no say in the 'terms' of determining guilt or innocence?

Judges often blather out with consistent braggadocio that this is "MY COURTROOM" as if they were royalty, and they did not function at the behest and service of the people.

Prosecutors have a single agenda.... successfully convict.

The jury is meant to balance that out... but few can stand up to lawyers who - at a whim - can dismiss you from the process - or declare you in contempt of the court.

No defense attorney - it seems - EVER has the gumption to tell the jury they have such power as to insist that the charges and case are a misapplication of what the community wants from THEIR justice system.... mostly because they think it's not THEIR system - but the Judges or the governments'.

The BAR could fix this... but if they did.. they couldn't "fix" cases to their liking, or for their 'political expedience.'

And since I am not a lawyer... I can say this ... American Jurisprudence needs a lot of work... the oligarchs, elitists, and technocrats are continually eroding the constructs that ensure liberty and freedom from oppression... need I openly ponder on why?

reply to post by WhatAreThey


Most people dont even know what jury nullification is. To the best of my knowledge the jury has the right but judges refer to the older "distinction?". You make an excellent point i must say.

I've been on jury duty three times and this option was never mentioned. I learned more about restaurants downtown from the instructional video than I did about being on a jury.

From my personal experiences I've learned that once in the system they keep calling you back, first at the county court then the federal court. I also learned Euchre so well I can play it without thinking now. It wasn't until much later when I read an article about the real power of a jury that I felt I might be more useful if I ever get call up again.

I'm amazed that nobody has posted here since I read this yesterday and did a little research.

reply to post by WhatAreThey

I think the key here is to get the Jury Nullification option written into the Record before the Trial begins. There, during opening arguments, a refusal by a sitting Judge would be glaringly Un-Constitional. Going to trial is not a lark, it is serious business, and must be taken as such. Preparation to the max is the order of the day.

reply to post by WhatAreThey


Thank you so much for posting your "jury nullification" experience. Sorry your intro post was deleted: Glad you made a new one! Folks need to have more understanding of this as do I.

I too learned about this topic through ATS. A great big thanks to you all for bringing this to light! Now if everyone would have their heads wrapped around this - then we may could get somewhere.

We, the people, need our power back and this was the best news ever , to know. Not the best news is in how they have covered this up and kept it from the people!

If there is ever a time, the time is NOW, to get a vice-grip back of control for and bY the people.

Interesting read and look fwd to learning more on this thread.
It's nice to know that I can be both law and jury guy when I serve!

The question I would like to know is, if I find something to not be a fair law, and one is guilty of such, but I disagree and say they aren't guilty due to this unfair law, what do I say when my answer is questioned by them without getting myself into trouble. How do we handle the interrogation of things? How is one to appropriately reply after giving your verdict?

I remember reading a post years ago on another forum of how all 12 jurors voted not guilty when they saw a bank video recording of how a homeless man had robbed a bank to get money to pay rent. He got like $500k and the jury said he was not guilty because they had used the equal protection clause of the Constitution to say that homeless man had a right to money to pay for a home to protect himself from freezing cold temperatures in the winter and mosquitoes in the summer that supposedly carried the deadly West Nile Virus.