|
Excellent thread....Here are some important cases concerning the RIGHT of the jury to decide issue of law.
Georgia v. Brailsford, et al., 3 U.S. 1 (Dall.) (1794)
on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. — Chief Justice John Jay.
"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 of passion, the jury has the power ,to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
The jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power.. to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972).
This is the area where we can act as sovereign citizens and tell lawyers and judges and rest of their ilk where they can stick it, when they work their wicked craft in their temples of Justitia. When it's obvious someone is being shafted by government, we acquit!!!!
For example, when, during a tax case, a defendant asks to be "shown the law" OR tries to use constitutional defenses and is denied by the judge, the outcome of the case should be determined in the juror's mind right then and there. NOT GUILTY. Anything else said by the prosecutor or the judge working in collusion with him would be disregarded by me and I would vote accordingly in the jury room!
Jury nullification is important when the system is wrongfully trying to railroad someone. It shouldnt come into play in every case, but unfortunately the govt is attempting to destroy free thinking people in this nation and this is one of the few ways left to defend ourselves.
|