NBC's Bias Against George Zimmerman

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

TLDR; Juries always have and always will have the power to acquit anyone on anything, for whatever reason they decide. The only power the judge has is to declare a mistrial and demand a do-over, but these jury nullification mistrial do-over convictions are almost invariably rejected on appeal.

While empaneling a jury, the judge informs them thats he decides on law they only get to weigh evidence. This is a bald faced LIE, and the judge knows it. They are not stupid, and they can read case law presumably at least as well as I can. (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 1969, U.S. v Moylan)

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

But then went on to say:

"…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed."

or US supreme court, 1895 Sparf v U.S. (i aint typin all this shit, believe me or look it up.)

Or in plain English, juries have the right to say "Screw You!" to prosecution evidence, and the law, but defense lawyers are not allowed to tell them that they can do this, and judges are NOT REQUIRED to inform them they hold this power as jurors. Judges have taken this a step too far when they deliberately lie to the jury and inform them (in direct conflict with appellate and supreme court rulings) that they do NOT have the power to decide on law. This lie told so often in every jury empanelment is a humiliating kick in the crotch to our constitution and our justice system.

Remember! When you are on a jury you have the power to reject any law, even the controlled substances act!
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Mob rule FTW!
Click to expand...
Jury nullification is not mob rule. The jury has to come to an agreement that the law is unjust. If just one guy refuses, then a mistrial is issued, without prejudice as a hung jury, or if the holdout is being deliberately obstructionist then he can be replaced by an alternate.

Getting a jury nullification is a rare and difficult thing, but I for one, if charged with cultivation possession or sale of cannabis would rather have a jury of you guys, my peers, even uncle buck (gratuitous) than a jury of tee-totaling mormons or a single federal judge deciding my fate, and the law. It's really why we have juries in the first place.

your previously cited link (http://www.duilawyerblogorlando.com/...-for-dui.shtml) was not even related to jury nullification, but a jury disbelieving the cop's statement. The moron who wrote the article didnt know his ass from a hole in the ground. Juries can decide on facts, and the jury decided they thought the defendant was not driving, despite the officer's claim. Had the officer's dashcam showed the defendant behind the wheel, she would be guilty in the eyes of the jury. Even OJ Simpson didnt get a jury nullification, he was found not guilty based on the evidence, and the jury's rejection of the police misconduct, and presecution incompetence (and some fast footwork from his legal team).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top