|
Post by midnightrider on Aug 9, 2012 5:47:23 GMT -5
One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, "When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification. www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin713.htm
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 9, 2012 5:53:02 GMT -5
Kudo's to all involved in pressing this forward... a great start! "New Hampshire's jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: 'In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.'
|
|
|
Post by hefferman1 on Aug 9, 2012 8:36:17 GMT -5
1 down 49 to go.
I don't know if that is right, but we need to make sure that in 49 other states the people are aware of this.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Aug 9, 2012 10:55:29 GMT -5
1 down 49 to go. I don't know if that is right, but we need to make sure that in 49 other states the people are aware of this. AMEN! And thus goes the way of Liberty. People in the various states seeing the benefits of Liberty exercised in other states, and demand "I want that here!". It is a proven model for success. tenthamendmentcenter.com/
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 9, 2012 14:58:21 GMT -5
When used for the first time, will this set a legal precedent that other states will have to follow?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Aug 9, 2012 18:31:14 GMT -5
Jury nullification has plenty of legal precedence already. This law, from my understanding, is more geared toward the "court's view" of the process.
The defense is now protected and allowed to present the concept of Jury Nullification to the jury, where as in the past, the judge would stifle such talk. Now there is legal grounds to force the judge to allow this discussion, or face a mistrial or appeal.
I can easily see this getting traction in other states, with this first law being the basis.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 9, 2012 18:41:26 GMT -5
Jury nullification has plenty of legal precedence already. This law, from my understanding, is more geared toward the "court's view" of the process. The defense is now protected and allowed to present the concept of Jury Nullification to the jury, where as in the past, the judge would stifle such talk. Now there is legal grounds to force the judge to allow this discussion, or face a mistrial or appeal. I can easily see this getting traction in other states, with this first law being the basis. In GA if a Lawyer mentions Jury Nullification, he most likely gets a butt chewing from the judge. As far as I know its legal here, but TPTB are not required to inform the jurors of their Nullification "Rights". Yup, thought so... In Georgia v. Brailsford, a Supreme Court opinion issued in 1794, John Jay, America's first Chief Justice, made clear that a jury's duty includes determining the facts and weighing the justness of the law. He wrote to the jury that: You, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.... oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.Since then, the Supreme Court has ruled on jury nullification only once. In 1895, in the case of Sparf v. United States, a criminal defendant appealed his conviction because the trial judge refused to allow the jury to challenge the judge's interpretation of the law The Supreme Court reaffirmed the "physical power" of juries to nullify, but held that federal judges need not inform jurors of their right to do so. Since Sparf was decided, Indiana, Georgia, and Maryland have adopted statutes requiring that judges in criminal cases inform jurors of their capacity to nullify. However, in most jurisdictions, the law of Sparf remains the law of the land: Jurors have the ability to nullify, but they don't have the right to know of their ability. www.letsgetfreethebook.com/jurorsforjustice/powertothepeople-isnullificationlegal.html
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Aug 9, 2012 20:55:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 10, 2012 2:57:06 GMT -5
We have posted the FIJA link here for years, we need to press it hard out to our networks.
I asked the wife yesterday what she knows about nullification... it was very little even though I have sent here the same info over the years, so I sat down and REALLY explained what it is, and what it does, she was surprised that the juries could do so much.
|
|
|
Post by midnightrider on Aug 10, 2012 7:46:36 GMT -5
YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW! As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated: "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict." www.patriotnetwork.info/Citizens_rule_book.htm
|
|