Jury Nullification

[Libertarian]

Lots of interesting info at this link:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1218815216

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Lots of interesting info at this link:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1218815216

Yes it is very interesting how judges are interfering in the rights of the people.

[Randy Barnett, August 15, 2008 at 11:46am] Trackbacks
Judge Nullifies Juror Nullification: A very interesting post today by Tim Lynch on Cato @ Liberty on a recent jury trial in a drug case:
It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution. The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade. The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client. And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.

But then something unusual happened. The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”

That’s a fair question. It is a point that has been made in Cato’s publications (go here (pdf) and here (pdf)) and a point that has been made by Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others. Federal District Court Judge William Young was startled. He says he has been on the bench for 30 years and has never faced a situation where a juror was challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law. Young tried to assure the jury that the federal drug laws are constitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause quite expansively. When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasn’t going to sign off on an unconstitutional prosecution, Young halted the proceedings to identify the ”problem juror.” Once discovered, that juror was replaced with an alternate–over the objections of defense counsel. Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges.

It is an extraordinary thing for a judge to meddle with the jury in the middle of its deliberations. So, to justify his removal of the “problem juror,” a man named Thomas Eddlem, Judge Young issued a 40-page memorandum of law (pdf). I happen to know and respect Judge Young. I invited him to speak here at Cato about the awful federal sentencing guidelines, but his legal memorandum in this case is remarkably thin. I will briefly respond to his substantive arguments below.
To read his analysis go to Juror Becomes Fly in the Ointment.

For those with a serious interest in jury nullification, I highly recommend Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (paperback) by Clay Conrad, which is the best work on the subject since Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury (1852).

There is little question that, at the Founding, jurors were triers of both the law and the facts. In essence, this provided a popular check on an overreaching legislature and a supine judiciary, although a check that would only operate on a case-by-case basis. A jury could find that a statute was unjust generally, or only as applied in the particular case. This would affect the general enforceability of a statute only if many juries agreed. Although juries retain the power to refuse to apply an unjust law, beginning in the Nineteenth Century, judges started prohibiting lawyers from advocating this to a jury upon pain of contempt. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a non-profit organization aiming to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial juror. Click on the link to learn more about jury nullification.

Emphasis added.

This is unjust domination by the courts, over the people's power, thus, Court Corruption.

[rottweiler]

This whole thing is wrong. I don't have all the facts of this case but everytime I dig into them they are inevitably all the same. Did the accused object to the jurisdiction? Did he object to the attorney? Did he counterclaim to force the government to prove they are sovereign over him? Did he object to the law he was accused of violating and keep on objecting until the cows come home?

I'll bet the reason the judge booted the juror is because the defendant failed to object to the law he was accused of violating. That means he already had a private agreement with the feds in place and the juror had no right to interfere in that agreement.

That means the only thing in dispute before the juror is did the defendant do it or not.

Congress doesn't need no damn express constitutional authority to regulate resident aliens.

If you read the trial of William Penn, he questions what law he violated and the baliff woudn't tell him. Then the judge basically starves the jurors. What is the difference between these cases?

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Yes it is very interesting how judges are interfering in the rights of the people.

Emphasis added.

This is unjust domination by the courts, over the people's power, thus, Court Corruption.

[Livefire]

Rottweiler,

While I agree with much of your above post, it still remains that the creep judge is guilty of jury tampering! The juror in question did nothing to disqualify him/herself and merit removal by the judge. This judge was merely pissed that someone dare question his rendition of the law and wasnt going to get the verdict he desired!

[rottweiler]

It is not the judges rendition of the law. It is the sovereign plaintiff who decreed it and the defendant who failed to object.

I guess you didn't read my post. If the feds and the defendant had an agreement by what right does the juror question it? I say the judge removed him for good cause.

The juror needed to stick to reasonable doubt and not ask crazy questions like that. All it did is get him removed from the jury and did not accomplish his goal of throwing a wrench in the gears of the federal union.

It is not so much a corrupt judiciary as it is a corrupt people.

Originally Posted by Livefire

Rottweiler,

While I agree with much of your above post, it still remains that the creep judge is guilty of jury tampering! The juror in question did nothing to disqualify him/herself and merit removal by the judge. This judge was merely pissed that someone dare question his rendition of the law and wasnt going to get the verdict he desired!

[rottweiler]

I could get him out of prison.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

It is not the judges rendition of the law. It is the sovereign plaintiff who decreed it and the defendant who failed to object.

I guess you didn't read my post. If the feds and the defendant had an agreement by what right does the juror question it? I say the judge removed him for good cause.

The juror needed to stick to reasonable doubt and not ask crazy questions like that. All it did is get him removed from the jury and did not accomplish his goal of throwing a wrench in the gears of the federal union.

It is not so much a corrupt judiciary as it is a corrupt people.

Good point,

The dude should've kept the legal questions out and just voted him not guilty!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I guess you didn't read my post. If the feds and the defendant had an agreement by what right does the juror question it?

Where's the evidence of this agreement?

I say the judge removed him for good cause.

I think this is incorrect.

The juror needed to stick to reasonable doubt

I agree.

and not ask crazy questions like that.

I don't think they were crazy, however, I think I understand your point.

All it did is get him removed from the jury and did not accomplish his goal of throwing a wrench in the gears of the federal union.

Yes, although many jurors ask questions without being ejected.

It is not so much a corrupt judiciary as it is a corrupt people.

Well, the juror in question, stood his ground, this is good.

A false conviction convicts the judge of oppression. -Keightley

[rottweiler]

The first trial was vacated on appeal because the judge failed to give the jury the entrapment instruction. Why do you believe this might be grounds to throw out a conviction?

The defendant's whole case hinged on whether he was a victim of entrapment. In other words, the defendant averred except he was going to rely on an affirmative defense. He claimed that when he refused to commit the crimes in question the government forced his la cosa nostra boss to order him to commit them, in other words an order he could not refuse. This question is one of law. Since there is a statute and the government is subject to statutes it is up to the judge to rule on this affirmative defense. Was the defendant predisposed to selling drugs? The judge decided he was so all the jury can do is nullify that, not the non-issue the juror raised. That's why they questioned the juror so the defense could not claim the juror had other things on his mind like nullifying the entrapment ruling.

Now as far as getting him out of prison? Start with a writ of habeus corpus by Luisi as one of the people of the United States by his appointed special master in a court of record. To be followed by a lawsuit against the judge in his personal capacity when he starts his bull$hit.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Where's the evidence of this agreement?

Well, the juror in question, stood his ground, this is good.

[rottweiler]

The defendant averred to the law. The only issue before the court was whether or not he had a valid entrapment defense. The judge obviously said no and the jury said no. The juror should of said not guilty be virtue of government entrapment to his fellow jurors.

Originally Posted by Held in Default

It is found in the commerce clause and is discussed in the recent California medical marijuana case that went the SCOTUS.