Jury nullification is a game changing right.

You can never be sure, but I'm pretty sure they were impressed with my argument.  At least the parts they were awake for.

I blew the jury away with my arguments.   Well, I mean, the arguments they didn’t sleep through.

People have a very powerful fundamental right in this country that could change things  overnight … if the people would just exercise the right. The problem is that the vast majority of the people have never even heard about this right. And that is not an accident.

I am talking about jury nullification.  I suspect few things strike more fear into the hearts of a statists than the idea of the people learning about this fundamental right.

I am not going to address the entire subject. It has too many moving parts. But you really just need some basics. Today I will explain what jury nullification is, show you how powerful it is, and then show you how the Courts have screwed us all once again on this topic. So, as the non-native English speaker might say, “let’s please first to begin.”

Let’s get a working definition. What people mean when they say “jury nullification” is generally, that the jury has a right to acquit a person who technically violated the letter of the law. Thus the law is “nullified”.  It is undeniable that juries have the RIGHT, in any criminal trial, to render a verdict that IGNORES the “law” as it was “given to them” by the judge. Here is what John Jay, as chief justice of the Supreme court told a jury in 1794 on exactly this issue!

I understand your honor, I won't make the same mistake again.  I just thought the jury might want to know about their rights.

Thank you for clarifying the basis for the jury instruction.  May the record reflect that your honor is holding what appears to be a 45 caliber model 1911.  And with that, the defense will rest.

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that 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.

It cannot be any clearer. Juries have the right.  Here is another example that is in the text of the Alien and Sedition act that was WRITTEN IN 1798 by our holy founding fathers themselves, They put the language in the statute itself!

And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

In the off chance people are still doubting, here is what John Adams said about this exact issue. The language was quoted in the dissent of a S.Ct. case.

Hold it, let me get this straight.  Are you saying that if the human says sit we don't actually HAVE to sit?  Whoa. That is big.

Hold it, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if the human says sit we don’t actually HAVE to sit?  Yes,that is what I am saying.  Whoa. That is big.

Now should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles, is a juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man of any feeling or conscience will answer ‘No.’ It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. . . . The English law obliges no man to decide a cause upon oath against his own judgment.

So not just a right a DUTY!  There can simply be NO doubt that the founders knew about and endorsed the jury’s right to judge the law and the facts. No doubt, it is a constitutional “right”.

The way the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK IS, the jury sits and listens to what the court and the witnesses have to say, and then the PEOPLE DECIDE IF THEY ACCEPT IT. The PEOPLE Decide if it comports with their sense of JUSTICE. So now you know if someone tries to tell you that a juror “must” follow the law as given by the court, they simply do not know what they are talking about or, much more likely, they are intentionally misleading you. It is that simple.

Here’s how jury nullification might be used. The prosecution brings a case for “statutory rape” against an 18 y.o. man for having consensual sex with his underage gf, because her parents get upset about something he did. There is no doubt it is consensual. But that is not a defense. If the jury acquitted him, that would be jury nullification. The jury, in all likelihood simply thinks the law, in this situation, is not just. So they ignore it. They “nullify it”.

People accept "speed traps" and other nonsense as though they are part of  "law and order".   Even the police probably believe it.  What a sad state the people are in.

 C.H.I.P.S. lives!!! lol People accept “speed traps” and other nonsense as though they are part of “law and order”. Even the police probably believe it.  What is the “crime”?  Driving with traffic at 6 miles over the made up speed limit?? lol What a sad state the people are in.

Same could happen in some drug possession case. Or for being in possession of a bald eagle feather, or on and on. The case is always the same. The necessary facts to prove “the crime” are basically “technically” indisputable. But the jury doesn’t convict. THAT is jury nullification.  And as you have just seen it is YOUR RIGHT.

The entire idea behind a jury trial is that the state must GO THROUGH THE PEOPLE in criminal trials. If the government is making laws the PEOPLE disagree with, the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW AND ACQUIT THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS. 

PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM THE STATE IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL!!

The people are in charge of whether something is criminal or not. If the people don’t want the conduct criminalized, then the people CAN REFUSE to criminalize it. If the people think the prosecutor is improperly singling people out, then the people don’t convict. If the people think the law creates INJUSTICE in any case, then they have the right to IGNORE the law.

Think how powerful a right this is!  Think how many bogus “laws” there are. Jury nullification makes them irrelevant because the PEOPLE can simply refuse to convict on them.

Hot or not?  Pushing him away? loving caress? or photoshop? Hard to tell.  That's why it has to be a unanimous jury to convict the old geaser.

Hot or not? Pushing him away.. or loving caress? or maybe just photoshop? It can be hard to tell. That’s why it has to be a unanimous jury to convict the old geaser.

What is the likelihood that the prosecution could get convictions on bogus drug possession cases if the jury knew about this right? What about prostitution? What about gambling? What about “failing to come to a complete stop” at an empty intersection? What about traveling 5 miles over the speed limit? And on and on!

The vast majority of “crimes” the state uses to scare and blackmail the people are utterly bogus. They are not real crimes that protect the people. They are acts that the government “criminalizes” in order to exert control over the people through fear.

And THAT is why jury nullification scares those in power.  The last thing they want is the people knowing that they can just DISREGARD the holy judge’s LYING instruction! 

And it is crystal clear to any thinking person that if the people knew about this right, the state’s “power” would collapse overnight down to a fraction of what it is now. And now you know why nobody knows about this right.

The people remain ignorant of this right because the government took over the schools and now fills peoples’ heads with lies.  The totally controlled media all around you does its part to make sure you are immersed in a world of lies and disinformation as well. This topic is NEVER DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED.  Instead they mindlessly have you repeat slogans about your right to a jury trial, but they LEAVE OUT the most important parts of that right. So you never hear about them.

Of course the S.Ct. and every other statist tries to confuse this issue if it ever comes up. That is what they do! The court is there to support the government, because THEY are the government. Any power the jury exercises is power that is TAKEN from these egomaniacs on the court.

Make no mistake, the jurors are lied to EVERYDAY by the courts.  They are “instructed” that they “must” follow the law as the court has given it to them. That is A state sponsored INTENTIONAL LIE.

The court warned him several times to watch what he said around the jury, but my service assistant just didn't listen.  Dogs have a keen sense of justice I guess.

I warned Buddy that the court was not screwing around.  He needed to watch what he said around the jury, but he didn’t listen. Dogs have a keen sense of justice I guess.

And the state makes sure that lawyers can’t tell the jurors either.  For the most part, if a lawyer even tried to inform a potential jury panel of this right he would be called to the bench, warned, and if he did it again, the judge would hold him in contempt. Then if the judge thought the jury actually understood what they were told, he would Dismiss the entire jury panel, and bring in a new one. If the lawyer did it during trial, the court would declare a mistrial, probably sanction the lawyer and warn him not to do it again or face jail for contempt.

Up until the government seized control of the “education” of lawyers through the “licensing” procedure and “accredited” schooling etc., the right was generally well known IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. Now, virtually no lawyer understands this fundamental right.

AS USUAL, THE SUPREME COURT CREATED THE LEGAL CONFUSION WITH AN NONSENSICAL RULING.

 The official screwing of the people began in earnest in the late 19th century when the S.Ct just ignored the peoples’ rights and made up a “new rule”.  And the screwing hasn’t  stopped since.

In a 5 to 4 decision (how convenient) after ACKNOWLEDGING THAT it is certainly the unquestioned RIGHT of the jury to judge the facts AND THE LAW, the court then held that the jury had NO RIGHT TO BE TOLD THIS! Lol  Here’s the case if you care to look. Warning it is LONG.  They always bury their lies and bulls**t under reams of distractions. It is their way.  Makes it appear “scholarly”, when it is just a load of CRAP.

Can there be a more absurd position? How does this work exactly? You have the right, you just don’t have a right to be told you have that right? Yes my friend. That is what they held. And ever since that S.Ct. opinion the Appellate courts have been repeating the same nonsensical load of crap to confuse the people. Here from the 4th circ.:

The court's same airtight "reasoning.has now made its way into the mainstream.

I guess reasonable minds can differ.   I do not agree with this guy’s assessment. I think it is a close call, but I would bang her, assuming she’s 18.     

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 or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision…

So the court correctly states and acknowledges your RIGHT, but then they find… :

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

How do you negate the rule of law by telling the jury about their right under the law? It makes NO SENSE. But there is NOBODY and NO MECHANISM by which to challenge this idiocy. It just gets imposed and then repeated as though it is rational.

And here is another example drawn from WIKI, the NSA’s own site.

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the majority and the dissent agreed that the trial judge’s instruction was untrue, but the majority held that this false representation was not a reversible error.

So the jury asked specifically about THEIR RIGHT to nullification, the court LIED TO THEM and that was FINE!!  What do you think would happen TO YOU IF YOU MADE A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT??? LOL You simply cannot make this stuff up.

Now you see why this topic is so taboo. Now you see why the government makes sure you never hear about it or if you do that they fill your head with disinformation and nonsense about how “dangerous” it is TO YOU!   lol, absurd.  The only danger is to the government. Not the people.

Sure these chicks had mistaken me for some other dude who was loaded, but I remembered the S.Ct. had made it clear I didn't have to tell them sh*t. Sorry gurrls. Sucks being you. Perks of being a lawyer.

Sure these chicks had mistaken me for some other dude who was loaded, but I remembered the S.Ct. had made it clear that I had no obligation to tell them JACK…. Sooo… Sorry gurrls. Sucks being you. Perks of being a lawyer.  Read the fine print next time! lol

My friend the state is CORRECT TO FEAR JURY NULLIFICATION. And that is why the state has been very careful to lie to you. They know they are vulnerable, as always, to the PEOPLE.

But they also KNOW that given time, and the power to propagandize and lie to people in mandatory “education” and “licensing requirements” and in their monopolized court system, that the people will forget. And they are correct. The sheep just go quietly to their slaughter imagining they are “supporting law and order”. Lol Utter fools.

Congratulations, You now KNOW MORE about this fundamental right than 99.9% of the population.

If this type of thing does not make you angry, then what can I bring you? If this type of thing does not make you see that governments are there to abuse you then what would? If this does not show you that the courts are not there to protect you that they are there to ENSLAVE you, then how can I show you?

My fellow inmates, I am done for today. I know that I left a lot out. I know there is more to say. I will get around to it later. For now, I hope you learned something. I just can’t stand any more hypocrisy for one day. I am late for the 4th of July freedom parade!

Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”.  Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

46 thoughts on “Jury nullification is a game changing right.

  1. Crocodile

    Just read this :

    The New Hampshire House passed a bill that would make it the first state in the nation to require courts to inform juries of their right to vote not guilty when the verdict would produce an unjust result. This right, which all juries possess but may not be aware of, is called jury nullification.

    Your comment, LegalMan ?!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I have not reviewed it though I was watching it earlier, say 8 months or so. What I would say about it is that I hope it helps but I suspect it won’t do much. What people don’t realize is the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. The way the “law” works in most of these situations is that it will only be sporadically implemented. The implementation will not coincide with the stated purpose it will end up being done in a way that actually defeats the purpose. Then litigation will ensue and the law will be “reinterpreted” by the courts to clarify it to ” help” and that help will basically solidify the nullification of the original purpose under the guise of fixing the implementation. Lol. So we shall see. — L

      Reply
  2. No Victim No Crime

    Statism is the worlds problem. It stems from the Catholic Church and carried out by the Jesuits. They are actually whats behind the joke word “illuminati“. History proves this over and over from Constantinople to Rome to present day. Statists are religious to the core and have been completely indoctrinated by the Jesuits of Rome. They have literally no ability to critically think or question whats happening. They merely wrap themselves up in a corporations flag and yell racism until they get what they want. Malignant narcissistic sociopaths control the world, but are you really surprised in a sin fallen world with the greatest deceiver as their leader?

    Reply
  3. Jan

    one of the verry few BEST sites i have come across in decades, and love the humour, i cant get enough reading your site, i pass it on to mant, but sad to say the sheeple are to busy being happy to give a terd, they also think we need these courts of just US, and really dont get it, they line up at the traffic counter and give them most of their hard erned cash, sad, sad.

    so thank you for this and the laugh i get reading your articles, peace out and within. from a fictitious state known to most as kanaduh. ps. the constitution is just that a con, it dosn’t apply to anyone, and those that say it is there don’t follow it, see Lysander Spooners Constitution of no authority.

    Reply
  4. Jeff

    Legalman,

    What should a Jury’s response be to the court if they are trying a “Jury nullification”? Besides “not guilty”.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Jeff, that is all the jury needs to tell the court. They really, as a practical matter, won’t get to do anything else. In fact, in most civil cases they “answer questions” and they don’t even render a verdict. The judge determines what the answers mean for a verdict. But in a criminal trial, you just go back in to the jury deliberation room, and say, well, I don’t buy it. I’m voting not guilty. And that is that.

      They aren’t even allowed to inquire into what happened in the jury room for the most part. And now people should know, that it is their RIGHT to vote not guilty for whatever reason they want. You are supposed to DO JUSTICE, not blindly follow unjust laws and rules. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  5. Bill

    Good article Legalman. I asked an atty in a lounge over a few beers recently and he told me that juror nullification is illegal. I was really surprised to hear this from a lawyer but even more shocked to hear that he practices criminal defense of all the people.

    He went on to elaborate for a while about how nullification was used in the southeast pre civil rights era on how all white juries would be hung or found outright not guilty of racist crimes lynching and murdering minorities in the mid-late 60’s and therefore illegal. I made the argument of citizens in the late 20’s during alcohol prohibition we’re refusing to convict their fellow citizens of having a bottle of booze and quotes from John Adams and the 1st Chief Justice John Jay.

    His response was we’re in different times now. I then proceed to ask, Aren’t we under the same Constitution? He just was saying it is illegal and you can be charged for contempt if you attempt it. I then offered him a $100.00 bill to show me the state/federal code or statute that specifically says about juror nullification is illegal. He turned around and started talking to a broad instead.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Bill I’m sorry to say I’m not surprised. He is simply ignorant of the law. It is common among lawyers. That is why they have “accredited” law schools and a bar exams that are all mandatory. They make sure lawyers learn nothing but a scam. Most judges also don’t know real law.

      I especially enjoyed his nonsensical reply that it is illegal but he had no ability to identify the law. He just doesn’t know what he is talking about. And he doesn’t know the simple facts I laid out. They aren’t anything to fight about. They are just facts. You exposed him so he moved on. Kind of scary for average people when you think about the idea that this guy has peoples’ lives in his hands. Take care. — L

      Reply
  6. usurykills

    “WIKI, the NSA’s own site.” You crack me up , L.

    I got my summons right here. Just missed going in Monday. Must call again for Tuesday.

    Oh, BTW, Happy Birthday to me? Jury same week as birthday and I don’t even vote.

    I feel violated — forced to play along with a game I abhor. Also, got a red light ticket…FDP!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Glad you enjoy the humor Usurykills. I never get called for jury duty. No idea why. The system makes no sense. It is never audited. God only knows how it actually works. The fact that they bring the people down there and then INTENTIONALLY lie to them about their rights and duties doesn’t seem to bother the drones in the population. They think they are supporting law and order. What can you really say at this point? I mean they spray us like bugs and the people can’t even see that. If our “enemy” was spraying us night and day like our own government, who then lies about it, the people would be up in arms and united against such poisoning. But instead, the drones are oblivious and if you try and point it out, which I gave up years ago, they think YOU are the crazy one. lol. Like everything else. Seeing is a double edged sword. It is freeing, but isolating. Mind opening, but depressing on certain levels. It opens doors, and closes many many others. They will keep you “on call” to go down there to impose their preposterous laws on your fellow citizen. If you tell them the truth, you will be asked to leave. lol. What a sad sad joke the whole thing is. take care. — L

      Reply
      1. Crocodile

        The solution is to pretend being a drone and fly under radar of the Status QUO.

        I think a guerilla mindset is a good thing, and masquerading as another sheep 🙂
        A “false flag” in miniature, so to speak, pretending to play by the rules of their game.

        Reply
        1. usurykills

          Kept waiting for the judge to inform me of my right to nullification…finally he asked if anyone could not judge based solely on “facts” presented today AND judge’s instructions…

          I just could not lie. Fessed up to my conviction that nullification is my right and was immediately excused. No argument, no questions, just excused. I hope that gets me off the list. (And onto another?)

          Half the day wasted, have to practice for my blues debut tonight!

          Reply
          1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            Lol, Usury, that’s a nice report from the “front”. I of course am shocked! shocked I say. Really is just so laughably predictable. They move you out, ruffle no feathers. Offer no explanation about what the S.Ct. itself has said. Definitely do not want to discuss it and possibly tip the other drones off to the truth. They just improperly dismiss you for a totally UNconstitutional reason. Remember, We MUST get BACK to the CONSTITUTION! lol. Whenever I hear someone say that I hear Forest Gump in my head saying “they need to go back to Greenbow ALA BAMA!” lol People don’t see how similar the two ideas are.

            Thank you for your service Usury. Too bad you weren’t allowed to exercise your rights. — L

    2. marc

      “WIKI, the NSA’s own site.” I read this as more than possible, as to a joke.

      But jury nulls reminds me of the Old Icelandic Thing. Awesome blog and so much of it needs to go viral.

      Reply
  7. I Am

    First we need a proper Fully Informed Common Law Grand Jury convened in full accordance with Common Law Grand Jury Rules, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Magna Carta.:

    https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

    https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/magna.htm

    JURY NULLIFICATION:
    https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurynull.htm

    ##
     

    Reply
  8. jon

    The dejure constitution of 1776 only gives the government the power to regulate commerce, not man and woman. In 1871 government became defacto and is now known the United States Inc. Anytime you see your ALL CAPS name, you are presumed to be operating in commerce until you break that presumption. reaperishere.weebly.com

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Jon I agree that as of the civil war whatever we had as far as freedom or a country of laws or consent of the people was GONE GONE GONE. lol and that is why so much laughable disinformation about that war has to be spread. The people can never learn the truth about it. Just like everything else. The entire system is built on lie upon lie. It is quite amusing when you see what a hollow joke it is, and YET, it stands. lol and people sadly rush off to fight and dies and kill to support an utter chimera. Quite a “proper” tragedy in literary terms. Take care. — L

      Reply
      1. Crocodile

        Legalman,
        there MUST be a way around this !
        If you know about it, then the other 99% can know about it.
        In our information age it should be easy to bring this information to the blind and make them see again.
        Thank you !

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Well Crocodile, a lot of people do know about it. But then many are actually arrested for handing out the pamphlets. The last thing in the world the power structure can allow is for people to begin to understand the power they actually have and the lies they have been told. –L

          Reply
  9. geoffreyfranklin

    There are four corporate state constitutions with jury nullification in them. One is Indiana. But jurors being the morons that they are how can you trust them to make the right decision???

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well geoffrey I would trust a jury more than a judge. I wrote a quick comment to “jono” on this topic earlier today. My suggestion would be that the defendant gets the option of whether to argue the issue to the jury. If he thinks it’s to his advantage he does. If he thinks it is better not to then it isn’t mentioned. I think that resolves the issue as fairly as can be done. The advantage always goes to the defendant and against the state. As dumb as many people are having been in quite a few criminal courts the judges are well known in a town. The judge is either a prosecution or a defense judge. It usually isn’t a secret. But you don’t get a choice so that is yet another way the system screws you. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  10. anon

    I exercised this right as part of the grand jury in a trial where a former high school football player, who was paralyzed from the neck down in a sport injury, had his caretaker accused of being a drug dealer for helping him smoke his own weed.

    I brought this up, and I swear the DA department’s attorney looked more relieved than anything that somebody knew this (I was one of the youngest on the panel too, which is sad).

    Still, once confirmed that it was our right, we had one 30+ y/o man who stubbornly wanted to bring this to trial “because it is the law”.

    I’m pretty sure the rest of us all thought he was a prick from that moment on and I can only remember this man with disgust at his sense of “principles”.

    The only rights any person has are the ones they secure AND persist to secure.
    Anything else is just a privilege in the making….

    Reply
    1. anon

      Approval for a trial* (grand jury determines whether or not several cases go to trial at all, not the jury most think of or see in a movie.

      Reply
    2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Good for you Anon. The DA himself should never have prosecuted the case. Never should have brought it to the Grand Jury. They are the only lawyers who are actually “sworn to do justice”. How in the world is prosecuting that guy “justice”?? It is a shame the brainwashing is so deep. Those “law and order” types are truly brain dead drones. I wrote about them not too long ago. They just don’t get it. They genuinely think that because it is written down that they “have to do it” to “be a good citizen”. It makes no sense at all to me. Like the old joke, “well how do you know that’s even true?” I read it. I wrote it down and then I read it. lol Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  11. Bill in IL

    I have known about jury nullification for years, although I never seem to be able to get on a jury on the rare occasion I am summoned. What really bothers me is judges and prosecutors are now actively denying nullification. They arrest people who hand out flyers about it in front of the court house and judges explicitly tell jurors they are NOT allowed to judge the law. Ridiculous!!! If I ever manage to get on a jury, I will not let slip I am going to judge the law as well!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Bravo Bill, you are right. They have taken the screwed up scrap the S.Ct created and twisted EVEN THAT. Yes, they strike you from the panel if you even KNOW about the right. They act as though it isn’t a right. And who blames them? They are power hungry statists. The court has found that even if the judge LIES to them and says there is no nullification right that it is not reversible error. So Why NOT do it as a judge. It is outrageous. But then, the people just sit around and take it. So we few just get dragged into the propellers while we try and swim against the boat. –L
      Oh and here is a post script. I just saw this article. A lady is arrested for failing to renew her dog’s license. Need I say more? what a laughable police state. Home of the free you know! love it or leave it! Freedom isn’t free! lol what a truly sad state the people are in. http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/07/06/michigan-woman-frisked-jailed-for-not-renewing-dog-license/

      Reply
  12. Blues

    Question for clarification from a layman: Is jury nullification different than a “not guilty” verdict and how does a jury present such jury nullification to the open court when it is time to present the verdict? Based on what you’ve written I get an impression that if the Foreman says “we acquit” the defendant or “we nullify the law” the response from the judge would be to call a mistrial and the process would have been wasted and a new trial would be scheduled.

    Please clarify. Thanks.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Blues, the Jury would not have an opportunity to say “we nullify” technically. An acquittal is a nullification if the facts were such that it was clear he was “technically guilty of having committed the acts that make up the “crime”. New trials after a jury verdict are basically not something that the law permits. For the most part they are not allowed as to the Prosecutions “motion”. That just wouldn’t/couldn’t happen. If you walk, you walk. And the prosecution has no right to appeal a NOT Guilty verdict. About all that might happen if the jury acquits someone in an obvious case of “nullification” would be the judge might “lecture the jury” as though they did something wrong since so many of the judges are right wing pompous asses who are ex prosecutors. lol But as a practical matter there isn’t JACK the court can do. The movie “Mystery Alaska” has a hilarious scene in it on this topic. The defendant is acquitted for shooting a Walmart representative because the town doesn’t want a walmart. Then the criminal jury ALSO tries to make the guy who was SHOT pay MONEY damages to the DEFENDANT townsman who shot the guy! lol. It is hilarious. The defendant is stoked, but the judge quickly lets everyone know the jury can’t do that. It is truly a great movie. And the scene is fabulous as well. I hope this clarifies. You can sit tight, keep your mouth shut, listen to the facts and the law and then ACQUIT for ANY REASON YOU CHOOSE!! You don’t have to explain to anyone. And they can’t make you explain. Go forth and do justice my friend. — L

      Reply
  13. Robert Bumbalough

    A determination is not the same action as a rewriting or nullification. The article’s author seems to fail to understand this distinction.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I always get a kick out of this type of comment Robert. It gives the appearance of erudition. I am quite sure I understand the difference. But space limitations make it impossible to explain every possible nuance on the topic. In fact I make it quite clear that I can only give the basics. Further, while I agree that the actual complete explanation of what the jury is supposed to do when determining the law and the facts is not necessarily a nullification process, the EFFECT of that act can rightfully be nullification and that CAN be the motivation of the jurors. That is completely within their rights. And when they outright disagree with the law and choose to acquit when the “violation” is clear, it IS the effect of their act. — L

      Reply
  14. andrew mango

    Good point and informative. However, I will take this one step further and prove once and for all that the only Law designated to stand as actual Law comes from Lord God.
    For example. People in default of a loan who have been unfairly adjudicated. The engineered collapse of the economy, the outsourcing of jobs, unfair wages, harmful and destructive treaties like gaff, nafta, tpp etc. Influx of illegal immigration, discrimination, and above all, the lack of appropriate and necessary action and intervention by the elected officials, who have sworn an oath to protect the people of his district. Instead, it turns out that these politicians are actually making clandestine sweetheart deals drafting “laws” as payment to banksters in return for monetary support. This is criminal as it is RICO and anything RICO is grand theft! It is a good example of the Pot, which is the government, calling the Kettle whom are the people, black! Read John Perkins book “ Confession of an Economic Hitman.” This individual should be doing hardtime in prison!

    It must also be understood that when a ruling or judgement comes from the bench then it is only an opinion and provided that the defendant is a creditor and not a debtor the opinion is just that. An opinion. The forcing of a government agency against one’s will in good standing i.e. a Creditor, is in fact a violation of Natural Law i.e. the Law given by an all perfect creator the Lord God. E.g. Thou shalt not steal! If the victim so chooses he has the right to seek damages punitive as well as compensatory from the state and the bank! But he must be a creditor even though the complaint and subsequent judgement adjudicated him as the debtor. FACT!

    Example regarding this case of someone in default as opposed as creditor is for example someone dismissed from his job due to drugs, alcohol, abuse, and overall poor performance. The offender may not obtain gainful employment due to his poor track record but unfortunately this was caused by his own behavior and regardless of the state and bank’s violation. Thus, the opinion becomes enforceable due to greater than 50 percent culpability. Anything less than 50 percent the debtor is the creditor then and the opinion is impotent.
    DeJour Law trumps Defacto legalize when you demonstrate that you are the creditor. And usuary is RICO!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Andrew I generally agree that Natural law is the only legitimate law. My recent article about the “law and order crowd” touches on exactly this point. — L

      Reply
  15. jomo

    SURE…juries can use this but it is not meant to be part of every case and people will never see it that way……if you wanted to change the system the real way to do it is to insist every person has a jury trial.
    90% of the cases in courts are settled with plea bargains.
    the system would come to a complete halt and people everywhere would have to be set free…..and all it would take is a jury trial by every person accused of a crime.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I agree Jomo that the use and the instruction to the jury is important. And that they shouldn’t as a matter of course just do any and everything they care to without regard to any law. And that should be addressed by who has the right to invoke the instruction. For me there is a simple solution, it is the Defendant’s choice in every criminal trial if he wants to inject it into the case. That way if he is afraid of prejudice against him, and he believes the letter of the law gives him the most protection, he leaves it out. If he believes the law is unjust or unjustly applied to him, then he brings it in. Poof, problem solved. lol As to your other point. Bravo, I have been telling people this for years. The system could not survive even a week in such a case. But it requires concerted effort, and that is not easy to get. Plus, it’s like the first Penguin through the ice. Those first few are going to get eaten by the seal, but if nobody goes in, then they all die on the ice. It is quite the problem. Better education of the population all around would improve the situation and open more doors. Glad you’re here hope you tell your friends. — L

      Reply
  16. kerdasi amaq

    Hmm, right as opposed to duty. Doesn’t the Judge have a duty to inform the jury of their right to nullify a law?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Kerdasi, no the judge does NOT have that duty. That was the point of the S.Ct. case I told you about. It specifically found that the right exists but that they do not have a right to be told about it. Thus there is no obligation by the court to inform the jury. That was the entire point of the contradiction that the S.Ct. injected into the “analysis” they did and the “rule” they announced. I hope this clarifies. — L

      Reply
  17. yoyo

    Many good points here.
    Kinda over the edge with some examples, but the principles apply.

    Best way to get off the jury panel is to ask the ‘judge’ about nullification.

    Of course, if you are told about the case by the judge and you have a dog in the fight, sit tight, ask or say nothing, act like a good lemming and your chances of getting on a jury are good.

    Then do your duty brothers and sisters….NOT GUILTY.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Yoyo, I am glad you understand that your duty is to defend the CITIZENS not to be a lemming and follow “instructions” from the state. lol. Good advice all around. Though, I’m not sure which examples you thought were over the edge, I made sure to use the official NSA site’s own examples just to give them every benefit of the doubt. lol. Glad you’re here. Hope to hear from you again. — L

      Reply
  18. Carey Nottingham

    …just wow! I don’t know how many more jaw droppers I can take.

    Why am I skeptical that a jury, if told their right while still being told the ‘normal’ instructions, would even use it?

    I should have more faith I suppose. But it’s not going to happen so why beat myself up *wink*

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *