Skip to comments.
Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted
New York Times ^
| February 25, 2011
| BENJAMIN WEISER
Posted on 02/25/2011 10:52:20 AM PST by Second Amendment First
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-183 next last
To: Truth29
“Sounds like he is a pain in the judges’ nether regions and other people in general”
He just sounds like a radical liberal to me. Maybe Obama needs to recruit him to become a community organizer.
21
posted on
02/25/2011 11:03:39 AM PST
by
Nitehawk0325
(I have the right to remain silent, but I lack the ability...........)
To: US Navy Vet
Yes. As I recall she had a servant and didn't pay SS taxes on her wages.
Some lawyer, huh?
To: US Navy Vet
23
posted on
02/25/2011 11:04:27 AM PST
by
BilLies
(no)
To: Second Amendment First
Nullification is a valid concept, like other things as our voluntary income tax structure or commerce clause or... Our activist friend shall get time to discuss such matters in a shiny new federal institution with like minded peoples.
24
posted on
02/25/2011 11:05:46 AM PST
by
mmercier
(despite all your rage, you are just a rat in a cage)
To: Truth29
Sounds like he is a pain in the judges' nether regions and other people in general, but he's not doing anything illegal. Judges would have you believe that they are the law in all aspects of jury deliberations. Jury nullification is a direct threat to their authority. Bingo!
To: texson66
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ....(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction....”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has....”unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”
26
posted on
02/25/2011 11:06:15 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: Persevero
Judges “instructing” juries should be illegal. Advise, yes, but instruct, no.
27
posted on
02/25/2011 11:06:44 AM PST
by
Christian Engineer Mass
(25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
To: texson66
Actually, jury nullification goes back to the beginnings of this nation
28
posted on
02/25/2011 11:06:57 AM PST
by
Emperor Palpatine
(Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!)
To: Second Amendment First
Another moron government action.
The publicity over this will destroy citizen confidence in the Just Us system far more than this guy's pamphlets, and he'll beat the rap with twelve jurors nullifying instead of one.
29
posted on
02/25/2011 11:09:18 AM PST
by
Navy Patriot
(Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
To: US Navy Vet
No that was Lainie Guinier.
However Wood is of kindred spirit
30
posted on
02/25/2011 11:09:29 AM PST
by
Emperor Palpatine
(Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!)
To: Second Amendment First
>>Only judges are allowed to influence juries, even if they do so in unconstitutional ways.<<
In the courtroom, but handing out pamphlets on the street is a free speech issue. Now, if what he is saying is false, that is another matter.
I’ve been on two juries, both of which were for trials that lasted roughly a month. In both cases I told my fellow jurors that, regardless of what the judge instructs, each of us can individually decide which way to vote in any way we see fit, even if it’s because you don’t like the guys heairstyle. It’s really only common sense.
I did not know at the time that it was called jury nullification (it was 20 years ago) but I knew enough about law to look up the responsibilities of the individual juror, plus, I saw 12 angry men. ;)
31
posted on
02/25/2011 11:10:19 AM PST
by
RobRoy
(The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
To: swain_forkbeard
Same here.
In my opinion, jury tampering is only a valid charge if he handed out the pamphlets only to specific juror(s) for purposes of influencing the verdict in specific case(s).
32
posted on
02/25/2011 11:10:19 AM PST
by
WayneS
(Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
To: cripplecreek
Excellent quotes. Thanks.
To: AU72
34
posted on
02/25/2011 11:11:19 AM PST
by
WayneS
(Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
To: texson66
A jury of peers is a check against judicial tyranny.
35
posted on
02/25/2011 11:12:46 AM PST
by
Crim
(The Obama Doctrine : A doctrine based on complete ignorance,applied with extreme incompetence..)
To: swain_forkbeard
I’m wondering how the prosecution is going to make its case, dancing around the offense he is alleged to have committed.
36
posted on
02/25/2011 11:13:52 AM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it -Voltaire)
To: WayneS
Even then it is covered by the First Amendment. Why? It’s not germane to the facts of the specific case. It’s no different then telling jurors that 2+2 is 4.
37
posted on
02/25/2011 11:14:16 AM PST
by
bvw
To: Second Amendment First
His pamphlet should be entered into evidence, and trial by jury.
The jury can then examine the evidence.
38
posted on
02/25/2011 11:16:10 AM PST
by
Balding_Eagle
(Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
To: Oztrich Boy
That will be interesting for sure.
To: RobRoy
Now, if what he is saying is false, that is another matter. No, it is not. This is no attempt to defraud, slander, defame. It is still free speech even if false.
And even in a case like this -- WHO determines what is political fact, or a historical fact? The history of jury nullification is strong and a certain influence upon the Bill of Rights. Go look up the Trial of William Penn in London.
40
posted on
02/25/2011 11:18:40 AM PST
by
bvw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-183 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson