It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Truth Supressed: Juries' right to acquit even if law broken

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 


Good point. Felons are also barred from voting and owning a firearm. Goes to show how important jury duty is.




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Everyone in America already knows this as the truth and we all saw it in practice with OJ after he killed his ex and her friend. There is nothing supressed here...

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The OJ jury failed to reach a finding of guilty. The truth that is being supressed is that the jury can find the defendant guilty, but choose to acquit regardless. I don't believe the OJ jury ever said there was enough evidence to prove him guilty, even if they thought he was. This is a bit different.

Example: Jury sees video tape of drug deal happen. Substance is proven to be drugs and defendant is clearly visible on the film. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been established, however the jury may choose to acquit because they do not agree with the harshness of the laws in realtion to the conditions in their community.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The OJ jury failed to reach a finding of guilty. The truth that is being suppressed is that the jury can find the defendant guilty, but choose to acquit regardless.


Au contraire.
I believe you are MIXING the possible with the legal. A lot of things not legal happen all the time but that does not make it legal. The logical ending of the notion a jury is free to do what it wants is another way of saying vigilantism triumphs! We claim to have a system of LAWS and not a system of MEN. It’s sometimes referred to as “Due Process of Law.” That means an orderly system, predictable as to form, with a regulated routine to follow. It leaves as little to chance as is reasonably possible.

To dramatize (or trivialize) the jury nullification argument, here are the make believe Judge’s instructions which would go something like this: “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, you have heard all the arguments, viewed all the evidence and listened to all the witnesses. Now you good folk retire to the jury room and bring back a verdict that seems to YOU to be the right thing to do in this instance.” See Note 1.


Example: Jury sees video tape of drug deal happen. Substance is proved to be drugs and defendant is clearly visible on the film. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been established, however the jury may choose to acquit because they do not agree with the harshness of the laws in relation to the conditions in their community.


Wrong! There is NO such option allowed to any jury.
The practice of nullifications is as old as the Republic. Even before 1776, local juries would sometimes acquit a smuggler caught in the act by the British. The British government warned the colonialists that practice was not going to work!

The “problem” - if there is a problem - is we want to keep the rule of law which includes the provision that in criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous and the jurors must be (individually and not collectively) convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. Each juror takes an oath before sitting that he or she will follow the laws of the land and the instructions of the court. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” cannot be defined by anyone in the court system. This is one reason it is better to have people serve as jurors who come from a Common Law cultural background and who are fairly conversant with the English language. If you don’t understand the significance we put on the Magna Carta (1215) then it raises questions whether that person can do his duty as a juror. The Magna Carta (Great Charter) established the right to trial by jury in England. No juror has any “right” to acquit a person he is convinced is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note 1. Mississippi.
When the jury shall be so impaneled, the jurors shall be sworn as follows: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that as a member of this jury I will discharge my duty honestly and faithfully, to the best of my ability, and that I will render a true verdict according to the evidence, without fear, favor, or affection, and that I will be governed by the instructions of the court. So help me God."

Maine.
The following shall be the form of oath, administered to traverse jurors in civil causes: "You, and each of you, swear that in all causes committed to you, you will give a true verdict therein according to the law and the evidence given you. So help you God."

New Mexico.
All prospective jurors are examined for prior knowledge or bias in the case. This is called the "voir dire," meaning "to tell the truth" of the jury. Once a jury has been selected, each juror selected is required to take an oath or affirmation that he will return a verdict according to the law and evidence as presented in court.

The attitude and conduct of each juror throughout the trial is equally as important as that of the judge, parties, attorneys, and witnesses. Because the jury has the important duty of deciding the true facts and applying those facts to the law applicable to the particular case, it is important that each juror understand the facts and apply the applicable law in order to reach a proper result. All found on Google. End of Note 1.

[edit on 12/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 




In 1969 the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: "If a jury feels a law unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law given by the judge and contrary to the evidence."



This is the Law.




...according to the law and the evidence given you...return a verdict according to the law and evidence as presented in court...



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


OK, you win.

Lets hope this is not a pyrrhic victory.


Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries, not normally disclosed to jurors by the system when they are instructed as to rights and duties.

The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems - a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations.

A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: 1) the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the 2) prohibition on retrying criminal defendants after an acquittal.

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.

Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community. A writ of attaint - an obsolete writ in English law - [was] issued to inquire whether a jury had given a false verdict in a trial. en.wikipedia.org...




The Writ of Attaint. In criminal cases, the writ of attaint was issued at the [instigation] of the Crown. The correctness of the verdict would be determined by a body known as the grand jury of attaint. This panel, consisting of twenty-four members, was twice the size of a normal trial jury. The Crown bringing the attaint could introduce only the same evidence that was originally given at trial while the jury whose verdict was questioned was allowed to present new matter.

If the grand jury found the trial jury’s verdict was an erroneous verdict. the wrong was redressed and the original jury was punished.

The punishment inflicted was quite severe; at the common law, the judgement was:
1. That they should lose their liberam legem [legal rights such as to bequeath or inherit] and become for ever infamous [for life].
2. That they should forfeit all their goods and chattels.
3. That their lands and tenements should be seized into the king's hands.
4. That their wives and children should be thrown down [evicted].
6. That their trees should be rooted up.
7. That their meadows should be ploughed.
8. That their bodies should be cast into ‘gaol’ [Hebrew for Hell and the denial of participation in the resurrection]. en.wikipedia.org...


I’d say nullification was a risky matter in the old days. I do not approve of it today. My comments are in brackets.

[edit on 12/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I thank you for your integrity. Jury nullification seems to be an integral part of our entire justice system since even before the U.S. was founded. (Understanding of course that our legal system is based on more ancient traditions.) I cannot say that I am against it for this reason. It seems like something our forefathers would have certainly protected.

However, the Constitution has been suspended since 1933. Our justice system has been incorporated for profit, operates under martial law, and no longer even practices law but public policy. This gives not only juries, but the entire court system the right to rewrite and reinterpret laws arbitrarily. This I believe, has become detrimental to justice.


[edit on 12/30/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Jury nullification . . I cannot say that I am against it for this reason. It seems like something our forefathers would have certainly protected.

When you say “ . . against it for this reason . . “ did you mean because “it” is very old - nullification or trial by jury - or were you thinking of the implicit violation of the juror’s oath?


However, the Constitution has been suspended since 1933. Our justice system has been incorporated for profit, operates under martial law, and no longer even practices law but public policy. This I believe, has become detrimental to justice.


I don’t accept your premise, Mr J/I/T/B, but I do accept that our justice system is in a shambles. But I lay blame in equal proportions to the PUBLIC and of our elected LAWMAKERS. Let me sum up Americans’ criminal justice philosophy in a sentence: “If you don’t like something, make it against the law, if that does not stop it, double the punishment.”

I’ll add 2 other observations. 1, nationwide we have about 2 million people behind bars. This is the highest number percentage wise in the industrialized world. 2, The DoJ recently warned that we are entering the time frame when 85,000 prisoners who were the first to received enhanced sentences are to be released over the next five years back into society.

We have done nothing to either prepare them or to prepare us for their reentry into society. This is a reference to Federal prisoners. I do not know how many state prisoners around the country are similarly situated. The Federal system has about 20% of the total prison population so I guess you could multiply the 85,000 by 5 to get the REAL number, around 425,000 to be released. WOW!



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I am not against jury nullification because it is a part of how our system is supposed to work. A sort of checks-and-balances measure. Power to the people to keep the government in check.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 




If anyone thinks that the business of the US economy is conducted in a manner that is beneficial to, or is in the interests of the rights set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider this:

It only took ten years for the privately owned Federal Reserve to drive the sovereign United States of America into bankruptcy. Woodrow Wilson established the Fed in 1913, and FDR suspended the Constitution in 1933 under emergency Executive Order as a result of the bankruptcy of the nation. What was the penalty of bakruptcy? What then did FDR give in trade to the FED? Your inalienable rights. (Not to mention the sovereignty of State governement as well.) U.S. Citizens became independant corporations. The people traded rights for privileges, and still are not aware of that fact to this day. You are not free, you are owned. You were bought out in 1933!

If you think the FED is looking out for your best interests when they make their decisions, think of how many corporations you know that aren't looking to eat their competitors alive.


I posted this on my thread Do Not Watch This Video....

You might also want to look at U.S. Constitution invalid for nearly 75 years

I have neglected the second thread for some time now, but have more updated info if you're interested.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I posted the following originally at The coming financial crisis may make 1929 look like a 'walk in the park':

Economic collapse is indeed an intentionally perpetrated event regardless of what titles or descriptions you want to give the shot-callers. The NWO, international banking cartel, whatever.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve was established. Within twenty years the Great Depression was ravaging the industrialized world and the United States of America was bankrupt. What did the Fed win from this? What was their reward for keeping America afloat economically?

The suspension of the Constitution in 1933 by a Congresionally approved Executive Order under FDR. The emergency has never been declared over, nor has Constitutional authority been returned to the land.

State sovereignty has been paved over by Federal districts. Example: The republic of Arizona was once abbreviated as Ariz. It is now abbreviated as AZ representing the federal STATE OF ARIZONA, in all capital letters.

Your sovereignty as an American person with Constitutional rights has been superseded by your incorporated identity, which is represented by your Social Security number and given-name printed in all capital letters. Anyone alive before Roosevelt came to office, was sold into economic slavery as default payment to the Federal Reserve. Anyone born since then has been born into economic bondage. Look at your driver's license, your name is printed in all caps. Look at the bill from the credit card company, your name in all caps. You are not a sovereign person with Constitutional rights, you are a U.S. Citizen incorporated with certain privileges as defined by military courts of public policy, not law.

Yes, military courts. Martial law. The courts themselves are corporate entities operating for profit, not justice, under military authority. The Army specifically, as designated by the gold-fringe border of the national flag displayed in courtrooms today.



Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:
b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:
c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:
(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom;
(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.






[edit on 1/2/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

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.

- Thomas Jefferson



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join