|
|
BUSTED IN MO
Antiprohibitionist
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: Here's the Secret Every Jury needs to Know |
 |
|
|
News
Here's the Secret Every Jury Needs to Know
Tue, Aug 26, 2008 10:35 pm
more: headline news, activism, activism news
Source: edmontonsun.com
I've got a secret to tell you. It's about jurors. Jurors called for duty on criminal cases have a secret power.
It's a secret because in a trial neither the judge nor the lawyers are allowed to tell the jurors this power exists. But it does. It's called "jury nullification."
It doesn't mean the jury gets nullified. It means the jury can nullify a law or nullify the application of a law to a specific case. Jurors can use this power if they believe a law is unjust or that the application of the law to the case would be unjust.
Juries exercised this power to acquit Henry Morgentaler on abortion charges in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time legal abortions had to be performed in a hospital and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.
Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and without any committee approvals. He was charged and faced four criminal trials.
As a matter of law he had no defence, but the juries refused to convict.
This power to nullify the law is dangerous. Using it, a white jury could refuse to convict a white person in any case involving a non-white victim. I'm sure that's happened. Also, if juries exercise this right then they are saying they know better. They, in effect, become law makers usurping the role of the government and prosecutors.
Now you know why lawyers and judges won't tell jurors they have this right -- we're afraid they might use it.
TRIAL JUDGE
Not only do we not tell jurors that they have this right, we tell jurors they are to take the law as explained to them by the trial judge, the strong implication being there is no right of jury nullification.
This issue came up recently when Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta was charged with unlawfully producing marijuana. Krieger has multiple sclerosis and uses pot for medicinal purposes. He also admitted to supplying the drug to other sick people.
The trial judge believed a conviction was the only possible result and directed the jury "to retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."
When some jurors balked the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they refused to do so."
After the jury came back with a guilty verdict, Krieger appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the judge erred in trying to force the jury to convict. The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.
At one time judges abhorred this power so much they imprisoned, starved or fined jurors who refused to follow their instructions to convict. Yet, this jury nullification power has served an important function throughout modern history. Jurors have refused to enforce fugitive slave laws, seditious laws prohibiting criticism of the government, laws prohibiting labour strikes, even prohibition laws.
USEFUL TOOL
Is there a need for this power today? With perfect laws and a perfect system of justice juries wouldn't need this power. But we don't have a perfect system and jury nullification can still be a useful tool in addressing abusive prosecutions and laws.
The real question for me is whether defence lawyers should have a right to tell juries they have this power. If there is no such right then we have to depend on jurors getting their knowledge from television -- a Law & Order episode discussed the issue -- or newspapers. That doesn't seem right. It makes for an uneven system of justice.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BUSTED IN MO
Antiprohibitionist
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Here's the Secret Every Jury needs to Know |
|
|
|
| BUSTED IN MO wrote: | News
Here's the Secret Every Jury Needs to Know
Tue, Aug 26, 2008 10:35 pm
more: headline news, activism, activism news
Source: edmontonsun.com
I've got a secret to tell you. It's about jurors. Jurors called for duty on criminal cases have a secret power.
It's a secret because in a trial neither the judge nor the lawyers are allowed to tell the jurors this power exists. But it does. It's called "jury nullification."
It doesn't mean the jury gets nullified. It means the jury can nullify a law or nullify the application of a law to a specific case. Jurors can use this power if they believe a law is unjust or that the application of the law to the case would be unjust.
Juries exercised this power to acquit Henry Morgentaler on abortion charges in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time legal abortions had to be performed in a hospital and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.
Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and without any committee approvals. He was charged and faced four criminal trials.
As a matter of law he had no defence, but the juries refused to convict.
This power to nullify the law is dangerous. Using it, a white jury could refuse to convict a white person in any case involving a non-white victim. I'm sure that's happened. Also, if juries exercise this right then they are saying they know better. They, in effect, become law makers usurping the role of the government and prosecutors.
Now you know why lawyers and judges won't tell jurors they have this right -- we're afraid they might use it.
TRIAL JUDGE
Not only do we not tell jurors that they have this right, we tell jurors they are to take the law as explained to them by the trial judge, the strong implication being there is no right of jury nullification.
This issue came up recently when Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta was charged with unlawfully producing marijuana. Krieger has multiple sclerosis and uses pot for medicinal purposes. He also admitted to supplying the drug to other sick people.
The trial judge believed a conviction was the only possible result and directed the jury "to retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."
When some jurors balked the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they refused to do so."
After the jury came back with a guilty verdict, Krieger appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the judge erred in trying to force the jury to convict. The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.
At one time judges abhorred this power so much they imprisoned, starved or fined jurors who refused to follow their instructions to convict. Yet, this jury nullification power has served an important function throughout modern history. Jurors have refused to enforce fugitive slave laws, seditious laws prohibiting criticism of the government, laws prohibiting labour strikes, even prohibition laws.
USEFUL TOOL
Is there a need for this power today? With perfect laws and a perfect system of justice juries wouldn't need this power. But we don't have a perfect system and jury nullification can still be a useful tool in addressing abusive prosecutions and laws.
The real question for me is whether defence lawyers should have a right to tell juries they have this power. If there is no such right then we have to depend on jurors getting their knowledge from television -- a Law & Order episode discussed the issue -- or newspapers. That doesn't seem right. It makes for an uneven system of justice.
|
The problem is in my county 171 cases were never given the chance to go to trail last year. All plead guilty-with no trial??? Don't we have the right to face our accusers? Don't we have the right for a trial? Aren't we supposed to have a jury of our peers (pot smokers?) to try us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BUSTED IN MO
Antiprohibitionist
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Here's the Secret Every Jury needs to Know |
|
|
|
| BUSTED IN MO wrote: | News
Here's the Secret Every Jury Needs to Know
Tue, Aug 26, 2008 10:35 pm
more: headline news, activism, activism news
Source: edmontonsun.com
I've got a secret to tell you. It's about jurors. Jurors called for duty on criminal cases have a secret power.
It's a secret because in a trial neither the judge nor the lawyers are allowed to tell the jurors this power exists. But it does. It's called "jury nullification."
It doesn't mean the jury gets nullified. It means the jury can nullify a law or nullify the application of a law to a specific case. Jurors can use this power if they believe a law is unjust or that the application of the law to the case would be unjust.
Juries exercised this power to acquit Henry Morgentaler on abortion charges in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time legal abortions had to be performed in a hospital and only after approval by the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee.
Morgentaler, however, performed abortions outside hospitals and without any committee approvals. He was charged and faced four criminal trials.
As a matter of law he had no defence, but the juries refused to convict.
This power to nullify the law is dangerous. Using it, a white jury could refuse to convict a white person in any case involving a non-white victim. I'm sure that's happened. Also, if juries exercise this right then they are saying they know better. They, in effect, become law makers usurping the role of the government and prosecutors.
Now you know why lawyers and judges won't tell jurors they have this right -- we're afraid they might use it.
TRIAL JUDGE
Not only do we not tell jurors that they have this right, we tell jurors they are to take the law as explained to them by the trial judge, the strong implication being there is no right of jury nullification.
This issue came up recently when Grant Wayne Krieger of Alberta was charged with unlawfully producing marijuana. Krieger has multiple sclerosis and uses pot for medicinal purposes. He also admitted to supplying the drug to other sick people.
The trial judge believed a conviction was the only possible result and directed the jury "to retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."
When some jurors balked the judge said "(i)t is apparent that some of the members either didn't understand my direction this morning, that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty ... or they refused to do so."
After the jury came back with a guilty verdict, Krieger appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the judge erred in trying to force the jury to convict. The judge had wrongly taken away the right of jury nullification.
At one time judges abhorred this power so much they imprisoned, starved or fined jurors who refused to follow their instructions to convict. Yet, this jury nullification power has served an important function throughout modern history. Jurors have refused to enforce fugitive slave laws, seditious laws prohibiting criticism of the government, laws prohibiting labour strikes, even prohibition laws.
USEFUL TOOL
Is there a need for this power today? With perfect laws and a perfect system of justice juries wouldn't need this power. But we don't have a perfect system and jury nullification can still be a useful tool in addressing abusive prosecutions and laws.
The real question for me is whether defence lawyers should have a right to tell juries they have this power. If there is no such right then we have to depend on jurors getting their knowledge from television -- a Law & Order episode discussed the issue -- or newspapers. That doesn't seem right. It makes for an uneven system of justice.
|
If we all do not get involved as part of the solution then we are part of the problem. Acording to the Stats every 38 seconds a pot user is arestted in the USA! We The People need to stand up! and Demand that our Public Servants to what We Want. I'm working on an open letter to all Public Servants & Elected Officials that we all can send Nationwide Demanding that Our Rights are restored by the Constitution & Bill of Rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brute4291
Mod-er-rater?
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 621
Location: Zion
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| If you plead guilty you usually get a reduced sentence. But if you go through trial and what they are usually harsher from what I've heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
von
Jerry Garcia
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
i have heard that to. if you plead guilty you'll get a lesser penalty. but if you plead innocent and found guilty you get the max penalty, its like that here and 95% of the people plead guilty. is that fair? i don't know, its a good question. i guess it depends on the type of crime also.
peace & pot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |
|
|
|
