New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law!

This is big big news.

For those of you who don’t know much about jury nullification, basically it’s when the jury finds a defendant innocent because of their dislike of the law. For example, a jury might refuse to convict a non-violent drug offender because they disagree with the fundamental premise of drug laws themselves.

Throughout the United States, judges have forbidden defense attorneys from informing juries that they have a right to nullify the law based on their dislike of the law. In California for example, jurors are required to inform on other jurors if one of them argues that the law is bad. The judge will then replace that juror with an alternate.

I have the feeling this New Hampshire law will end up having a tremendous effect on the American judicial system as a whole. If enough people start nullifying drug laws in New Hampshire, eventually New Hampshire prosecutors will be forced to stop prosecuting drug offenses in that state entirely.

Reason Magazine reports:

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about. And last week, New Hampshire’s governor signed a law requiring the state’s judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.

On June 18, Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, which reads:

"a Right of Accused. In 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."

continue reading

----

This article first appeared on LibertarianNews.org. I am Michael Suede, the author of this article. This article is public domain.

Incredible!

My first thought on this is a resounding "Yes!", but I'm going to read the entire article now just to make sure I'm grasping all of what is being stated.

Thanks for the post and info!

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


This can only end up saving New Hampshire a boat load of money in the long run. So much is spent on housing criminals who really aren't criminals.

TY for posting this.

Des

reply to post by Destinyone

This can only end up saving New Hampshire a boat load of money in the long run. So much is spent on housing criminals.

Right, because incarcerating more people for bogus non violent offense laws made up by greedy corporations working with politicians will save lots of money.



The US has more citizens incarcerated than all other countries, and jury nullification just makes it easier for these corrupt court systems to get more convictions for laws that are way outdated, ie- marijuana laws.

Don't get me wrong about drug laws, Heroin is really bad in NH and hard drugs do destroy lives... so does alcohol, and that is everywhere in NH. They also just shot down passing the medical marijuana law here because of this idiot governor, who seems to be trying to get to Rahm Emanuel's level of mafia corruption.

Live Free Or Die.... LMAO.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I think you misunderstood me. I am all for this new law. It means *less* people being incarcerated for non-crimes.

It costs we, the taxpayers, over $35,000 per year, per inmate in prisons. I honestly believe there are too many people in prison who don't belong there.

Hope that clears it up on my stance.

Des

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Apparently I don't understand your understanding of jury nullification. Are you somehow under the impression that this takes control away from a jury?

I just don't follow your reasoning; could you amplify?

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Nullification is a spin term. The law stays on the books. It is only the case on trial where the law is found to be inapplicable/harsh; etc.

Chief justice John Jay in a rare jury trial before the Supreme court, in his instructions to the jury made it clear that a jury has the RIGHT to judge the law and the facts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Any lawyer who argues this is subjecting himself to harsh treatment by the bar association and judges. Most have swallowed the false teaching that a jury can only judge the facts. You can bring it up if you appear 'in propria persona' but probably not when appearing 'pro se'.

reply to post by Destinyone


It's the same as stacking the jury, no?
If a juror thinks the law is junk, that juror can be replaced by another. What am I misunderstanding?

If I was a juror for someone being prosecuted for MJ possession, I won't be finding him "guilty" because I don't think that substance should be illegal, it should be just like cigarettes and alcohol, regulated, and taxed. That would bring in tons of revenue for the states as well.

So going by what I read, I would be replaced from participation in that trial because of my beliefs. Then someone who think MJ kills people can replace me and the poor person being prosecuted can get years in prison for something harmless?

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Yes, you are misunderstanding this situation. In many jurisdictions, the courts forbid attorneys from informing jurors on nullification. In some, the jurors have been instructed to inform on other jurors, who suggest nullification. They are then replaced.

However, this NH law appears to clarify that attorneys are permitted to make jurors aware of their right to the jury nullification option. This, in turn, would prevent courts from replacing jurors for that.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


No, you would NOT be replaced as a juror. That is the part you are misunderstanding. It's been explained several times already. Go back and reread the OP....methinks you missed something the first time around.

Des

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by Destinyone

 

It's the same as stacking the jury, no?
If a juror thinks the law is junk, that juror can be replaced by another. What am I misunderstanding?

You are misunderstanding that it was an example of the law in California used to illustrate the present circumstances in many states. The article discusses a change in the law in New Hampshire to allow jurors to understand and apply jury nullification.

New Hampshire: Right hand side of the country.
California: Left hand side of the country.

3,000 miles of difference, including different laws.

Just WOW! This is great news as a LEO for 16 years witnessing first hand the abuses of the court system i can not stress enough how great this is! As jurors begin using this law it not only will encourage prosecutors to stop frivolous prosecutions it will discourage LEO'S from making frivolous arrests! This with any luck will spread to other States and further empower the people! Go
New Hampshire!

Here is a document on nullification created by a lawyer that explains your rights as a juror. Every American citizen should take the time to read this document.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
This is big big news.

For those of you who don’t know much about jury nullification, basically it’s when the jury finds a defendant innocent because of their dislike of the law. For example, a jury might refuse to convict a non-violent drug offender because they disagree with the fundamental premise of drug laws themselves.

Throughout the United States, judges have forbidden defense attorneys from informing juries that they have a right to nullify the law based on their dislike of the law. In California for example, jurors are required to inform on other jurors if one of them argues that the law is bad. The judge will then replace that juror with an alternate.

I have the feeling this New Hampshire law will end up having a tremendous effect on the American judicial system as a whole. If enough people start nullifying drug laws in New Hampshire, eventually New Hampshire prosecutors will be forced to stop prosecuting drug offenses in that state entirely.

Reason Magazine reports:

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about. And last week, New Hampshire’s governor signed a law requiring the state’s judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.

On June 18, Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, which reads:

"a Right of Accused. In 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."

continue reading

----

This article first appeared on LibertarianNews.org. I am Michael Suede, the author of this article. This article is public domain.

Jury nullification doesn't need to be "adopted"...it's part of our current legal system at the local, state, and federal level.

However, the fact that New Hampshire passed this law will most likely EDUCATE people about the rights they already had as jurors.

No did i get that right?
New Hampshire, passed a law that you now can be informed is enshrined in New Hampshire law
That you hold currently, and under the constitution of the USA, always have had the right to do this?

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


when the jury finds a defendant innocent because of their dislike of the law.

because of their dislike of the law. well of course thats the BLIND part.

people dont generally like Law,, and are BLIND too any argument, for a new one.
so each side presents its case based on,,,
was he PROVEN gulity?
,, nope.
yup.
why?
broke the Law,
what is his sentence,,
we the jury find the person gulty of the law.
but innocent in offence.
so
$5.00 dollars,,
yup give him $5.00 bucks.

people are blind,, not stupid.

About time. The jury instructions for most lasw for consentual crimes especially drug laws basically read: You the jury are to believe anyone of athourity to be a valid proof of guilt, and must convict. The beauty of the jury nullification is that if you can argue that if a law is inneffectual, differing in it's stated purpose, and creates more harm by it's application than the act phohibited, the jury can toss it off the books. We can all agree that most drug and tax laws are this way.