JURY Nullification

[Gordon Becker]

Jury Nullification
Posted by Gordon Becker on April 21, 2008 at 9:45pm in How-to Help
View Discussions
The jury has the right, according to rulings by the US Supreme Court, to decide cases according to their conscience and are not bound to follow the law as it is interpreted by the judge, or anyone else. But the Supreme Court has also ruled that judges do not have to tell the jury of their rights. The Constitution does not give the legislature, executive, or judicial branches any power to limit the power of the jury but judges and legislators have passed rules and laws that reduce the jury to fact finding only. This has eliminated the essential function of the jury.
Many groups throughout the United States have tried to get amendments to state Constitutions that require judges to tell jurors of their historical right to decide the case before them according to their own conscience and to recognize that they are not bound by the judge's instructions and interpretation of the law which is given as an aid but not an order. I would like to see our state constitution amended to include a "jury bill of rights" that requires judges to tell jurors of their constitutional rights and powers and that makes explicit the constitutional limitations forbiding the judicial and legislative branches from passing any laws or rules that limit the rights or powers of the jury. It will take a vote of the people to accomplish this since the legislators and judges do not want to give up the unconstitutional powers they have illegally acquired.

[Rick M.]

Do we really need THIS in the new constitution?

I saw a jury find a guy not guilty of DUI because they thought that even though his blood alcohol exceeded the limit, the video didn't look like he was impaired.

So juries do this anyway without anything needed in the constitution.

[Gordon Becker]

No system is perfect, but juries are the last vestige of the power and voice of the people. Many people died to get the Magna Carta and to limit the power of government officials. The founding fathers emphasized the importance of the jury. The Supreme Court has recognized the right of the jury to decide both the law and the facts, but judges tell the jury that they must only decide whether or not the facts conform to the law as interpreted by the Judge. The Supreme Court hs also ruled that the jury does NOT have to be informed of their rights.

We need a constitutional amendment to require judges to properly inform the jury. and to stop the unconstitutional infringements that have been made by both the legislative and judicial branches, and that are likely to continue unless stopped by the general public.

[Gordon Becker]

In the above example, the jury appears to have followed the judge's instructions to limit their decision to whether or not the facts showed that the law, as interpreted by the judge, had been violated. The suggested amendment will not correct bad jury decisions about the facts, like the one above, but rather will correct unjust decisions that are based on bad interpretations of the law,

The jury has the right to know what their constitutionl rights are and not be misled by judges. It will take a constitutional amendment to assure that juries are properly infomed