The jury nullification redux: a layman's guide and your duty to judge illegitimate laws.

Very simply, jury nullification is the idea that a juror not only consider the "facts" of the case, but the actual law.

For example, jury nullification was an effective tool during the pre-Civil War era when northern juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act because jurors felt the laws to be unjust.

As usual, Ron Paul is at the forefront of this process. So much so, that hes referenced in the wikipedia entry: Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative and presidential candidate in 1988, 2008 and 2012, is a notable supporter of jury nullification and has written extensively on the historic importance of juries as finders of fact and law [36].

Ron Paul comes in at 4:23.

He also devoted a chapter to nullification in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege.

So if you were on a jury, are there any laws which you would nullify?

Sure it would depend on the specifics of the case, but what comes to mind?

How about drug possession? What about tax evasion? How about someone who was being evicted due to a bank foreclosure or property taxes?

More info can be found here: fija.org...

As someone who put some volunteer time into petition signing a long time ago for this issue (to have this point at least noted to Jurys, for all the good that effort did), I'd want to add something real important here. It's VERY important too.

This is a perfectly valid concept and practice as far as I'm concerned. It goes to the very heart of our system and the citizen standing as the ultimate check/balance to a system gone too far. It really is the right approach for that.

The Judiciary will NOT see it that way. Even saying the WORD can be enough to be bounced out of a Jury pool in some cases..and pushing it to the rest of the Jury can bring a mistrial.

So, while I love the concept and it's valuable .... It also takes a bit of thought and clever consideration for how to exercise that right ...without technically exercising that right. Many in the legal system would say the whole notion is illegal on the face.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

So, during deliberations, the juror shouldnt bring up idea that he or she doesnt agree with the law but instead argue that the prosecution didnt make its case?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
As someone who put some volunteer time into petition signing a long time ago for this issue (to have this point at least noted to Jurys, for all the good that effort did), I'd want to add something real important here. It's VERY important too.

This is a perfectly valid concept and practice as far as I'm concerned. It goes to the very heart of our system and the citizen standing as the ultimate check/balance to a system gone too far. It really is the right approach for that.

The Judiciary will NOT see it that way. Even saying the WORD can be enough to be bounced out of a Jury pool in some cases..and pushing it to the rest of the Jury can bring a mistrial.

So, while I love the concept and it's valuable .... It also takes a bit of thought and clever consideration for how to exercise that right ...without technically exercising that right. Many in the legal system would say the whole notion is illegal on the face.

Not a bad point. I served on a jury, and not only were we not told about jury nullification, but we were given instructions contrary. That if we agreed that the points of the crime in question had been proven, we had to vote guilty.

I was fully prepared to practice nullification if I saw fit.

And to the question posed-- I would not be willing to convict someone for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, etc... I believe those laws border on unconstitutional... though of course that's about as far as i can discuss that here....

reply to post by gladtobehere


Fellow Citizen of the Republik...

I do not endorse any obviously il legal activity



However keep in mind most Prosecutors do not present most the facts and they leave out key points... they like to try and emotionally lead a jury...

Remember something from Remote viewing...

details not conclusions...details and try your best to not interpret details

details paint the picture... not conclusions... in fact come to a conclusion to soon and you will not be able to reach an honest verdict...


as for the law... the jury's job is to interpret how the law is affected by the facts of the case

if I remember correctly
ex- a mans not guilty plea was based on the fact that the man deserved to die

the 'victim' was a child molester who had multiple victims, was a cousin of the prosecutor, and had just victimized the mans child (DNA proof)...


so he turned around got a gun and shot the man dead.. reloaded I think three times..

Defense was the man deserved it..

jury ruled not guilty..
they were quiet as to why... officially..

reply to post by gladtobehere

If I get the opportunity to actually serve on a Jury, that is how I plan to handle it....assuming it applies. I could just as easily get called on a cut and dry murder case or shoplifting thing someone was just too dumb to plead out, too. The last time I got called up here, I made it to in-court questioning of the pool and it was a forgery case on tape at the retail counter from what I could gather. Not much to nullify there. I don't like ID thieves. (probably why I was not selected. I wasn't real subtle on the 'Do I know law enforcement' question..lol)

My other half did just get Jury Duty notice for Federal Court though. That is an interesting thing I've never personally seen before. We're both wondering what that could be about since the Federal Courthouse in this area is a pretty quiet and boring place, all things considered. It's for a call almost a month and a half in advance too.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I was called in for Federal jury duty once but didn't get selected. It was a case of a felon being found in possession of a firearm.

That is one of the cases that I am strongly against nowadays. I just don't see how they can deprive a man of a constitutional right just because he's served time in jail. The way I see it, if he's served his time and paid his debt to society, he should be able to resume his life with all of his rights intact.

Back then, I wasn't as enlightened as I am now but, I still felt unconfortable with that type of case. I'm just glad I wasn't selected to serve.

Nowadays, I write on all my jury questionaires "I am a strong believer in the theory of jury nullification". For some reason, they always tell me I don't need to bother coming down to the courthouse when the time comes.


ETA: I just got done reading the book Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine . I think its criminal the way the courts exclude jurors who might decide a case independently. Case law says that there is nothing against jury nullification and that its completely within the jury's rights but, the defense attourney is not permitted to inform jurors of this right and they must discover it on their own.

What a load of BS.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Know that you have the power, you always have, and when in the jury box you get to exercise your only REAL voting power. Being on a jury and judging the law and the facts is the most important civic power we are given. If we want a better society it begins in the jury box. Sure, we can be active politically, write our reps, petition etc.. and that is a good thing but when the citizenry makes itself heard it is in always on a jury. Nullify any law that is unjust and the DA will stop prosecuting those cases if they can't win. It's that simple.
I find it ironic though that while people have this godlike societal power they whine and complain about jury duty, # I want to get on juries just to use this power.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Many in the legal system would say the whole notion is illegal on the face.

Then many in the legal system would be wrong.