Jury Duty: People’s right to judge both the facts AND the law in ANY case.
Did you know that you qualify for another, much more powerful vote than the one which you cast on election day? (Of course, that was before the voter fraud and machine counts taking place). This opportunity comes when you are selected for jury duty. In essence, the courts and attorneys in this country have mooted the voice of freedom and justice coming from the Jury.
A juror actually has the power to judge, BOTH, the facts in a case, and the law itself. Contrary to what we’ve been deceived into accepting, when a Judge instructs a Jury to find a defendant guilty, he is tampering with the Jury. He has no legal authority to do this. Consider; if the Jury has to do what the Judge tells them regarding the law, and how to find someone based on his opinion of the law, WHY HAVE A JURY? Why go through the motions of choosing 6-12 people to hear a case, only for them to have to do what the Judge tells them to do? It would be far easier to just have the Judge do the deciding wouldn’t it?
The truth is, all Jurors have the right and DUTY to consider the facts, the law, the truth, and THEN vote their conscience and as they believe is best for society and the defendant. If a Judge tells them to disregard something, you regard it if it is relevant. If objections are made, and overruled, you consider those objections, and follow up on it if need be.
Our Founding Fathers knew full well the protection a Jury was against out-of-control government, unjust laws or where someone was being unjustly treated or railroaded. A Jury is the best assurance of justice prevailing, and against bogus laws or charges acting under the color of law.
A Jury cannot be charged with anything if they decide someone is innocent, or guilty, according to ALL the facts and the laws on the issue, AND... their own conscience. A Jury has the right to question the defendant. They can request this through the Judge. They can request any or all information regarding laws, statutes, definitions, case law, you name it. Why is this important?
We have all heard about outlandish cases where people have been wrongly convicted, or are the target of some government pressure. A Jury is the means by which society can step in to stop this foolishness and prevent injustice. Unfortunately, there are times when this power is misused, such as in the O.J. Simpson case, where evidence proved he was guilty, but the Jury had the power, and used it, to free him. Did they get into "trouble" for going against the evidence? NO!
If you hear a case, and you believe it is morally wrong to convict a defendant, or it is a vendetta, even if a law was broken, you have the right of "Jury Nullification." You can nullify a possible conviction which would be held against someone, by finding the defendant innocent, even though the law and evidence says he is guilty. This is a fact proven by case law.
The jury is there, by design, "to prevent oppression by the Government" and to "protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968).
"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132.
"On questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on question of law, it is province of the court to decide. But it must be recognized that by the same law, which recognized 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. On this, and on every other occasion, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court; For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best judge of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." State of Georgia vs. Brailford, et al 3 Dall, 1, 4; (See also U.S. vs. Moynihan, 417 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
"It is also their duty to exercise their judgements upon the law, as well as the fact; and if they have a clear conviction that the law is different from what is stated to be by the court, the jury are bound, in such cases, by the superior obligations of conscience, to follow their own convictions. It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent." Alexander Hamilton (As quoted in "33 questions about American History you’re not supposed to ask," taken from Clay Conrad’s book, "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine."
"Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine." Judge David L. Bazelon, Dissent in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. 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 of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).
"Juries... are not fineable for giving their verdict contrary to the evidence, or against the direction of the court; for the law supposes the jury may have some other evidence than what is given in court, and they may not only find things of their own knowledge, but they go according to their consciences." Jacob’s Law Dictionary.
The Jurists, who we presume are sound-minded citizens of whatever State they are from, usually have the best interest of society, law and truth in mind. When a Judge tampers with a Jury by telling them how to find a defendant at the end of a trial, he is overstepping his authority, and this is illegal. KNOWING your rights as a Jurist, and taking ALL evidence you know of (whether from court proceedings or from personal first hand knowledge), is justice at work. You have the power to ask whatever you will of the defendant or Judge, request all facts, laws, case laws, etc., as you wish. Don’t be the puppet they want you to be.