Posted on 02/25/2011 10:52:20 AM PST by Second Amendment First
No doubt the defendant has taken lessons from the Dear Leader. You don’t like the law just ignore it or do how you FEEL about it!
If he were tried and I were a juror and lacking evidence that he attempted to affect specific outcomes on specific cases, I would nullify these charges.
Jury nullification is a great power against unjust laws, just like state nullification.
If he were tried and I were a juror and lacking evidence that he attempted to affect specific outcomes on specific cases, I would nullify these charges.
***********************************
Agreed. On its face this is a mere thought crime against the Washington government and its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Is that like Presidential nullification of DOMA?
That is not jury tampering.
To inform juries of their constitutional rights is not tampering.
Attempting to influence their vote is. He was not trying to tell them to vote one way or the other on anything.
He’d better win this case.
A jury in New York City recently nullified a charge against a man from out of state who had a handgun in his vehicle. He admitted he had it in his glovebox but had forgot it was in there. He was facing a felony conviction and years in prison. I would have nullified the charge against him also.
Jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws, ie RomneyObamaCare.
I think I saw that guy at the O.J. trial.
It sounds like free speech to me. We see a lot worse speech—seditious, vicious—every day, but no one interferes. Look at Wisconson... or MSNBC.
That’s right! Ultimately legitmate power only comes from the people. That means a jury has the right to nullify the effect of a law by refusing to convict based on the law.
this is what he was handing out:
http://fija.org/download/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf
...oh, the horror!
Yes, jury nullification gives the people (the jury) the ultimate control in a court case. Which is where it belongs.
I encourage FReepers to serve on juries and help take back this country; and be familiar with jury nullification should the need arise.
OJ’s attorney argued nullification based on racial payback.
In the Nannygate matter of 1993, Wood was Bill Clinton's second unsuccessful choice for United States Attorney General.[7] Like Clinton's previous nominee, Zoë Baird, Wood had hired an illegal alien as a nanny; although, unlike Baird, she had paid the required taxes on the employee and had broken no laws. Wood employed the undocumented immigrant at a time when it was legal to do so, before enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made hiring of undocumented workers unlawful.[8] The threat of a repetition of the same controversy quickly led to a withdrawal of Wood from consideration. Janet Reno was later nominated and confirmed for the post.
No, it’s being judged by a jury of your peers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.