14 votes

At Issue: Jury Nullification: "How Much Power Does A Jury Really Have?" - Ron Paul, MD

This is a MUST see and share:

Jury Nullification meaning that the Jury has the power to over rule a bad law based on the evidence in a trial. This power is now in jeopardy. Federal Government for centuries has been undermining the power of the Jury, that our forefathers had imagined.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ChristianAnarchist's picture

Honest Consistent Integrity

Honest Consistent Integrity ...

Beware the cult of "government"...

There's a catch 22 though

when you are questioned prior to being chosen for the jury, the attorneys will ask you if you believe the law being charged is a just law. If you say no, you will not be chosen. If you say yes, and then nullify, you can found in contempt.

Sneaky bastards!

Here in GA we are entitled to an impartial jury. That being the case, if someone declared that they believed the law charged was 'just' without hearing the facts of the case, you could dismiss them because they were partial. If the Judge says you have to agree with him/her on whether the law is just or being used correctly, then you should be able to declare a mistrial as the Judge is showing partiality and assuming the role set for the Jury.

I think we ought to promote a National use your Right to a Jury Trail Week or month. Get everyone who can manage the pain in the ass of going to trial, to do so. I saw some post sometime back that said if just 3% of people who had committed a victimless or crime against the State (Tickets, fines, etc) went to trial, it would crush the system.

link for those not familiar with the Kriho case

On August 4, First Judicial District Chief Judge Thomas Woodford signed a motion filed by the District Attorney to dismiss the contempt of court case against Laura Kriho, ending a four-year saga that brought the issues of jury rights and jury nullification into the international spotlight. Legal experts say the Kriho case was the first time in over 300 years that a juror was prosecuted based on evidence of how they deliberated and voted in the jury room.


scawarren's picture

Great post, PAF!

Great post, PAF!

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain


Here is a pre Magna Carta example:

"Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled" Numbers 35:24-25


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Ga Constitution

Art 1 Section 1 Paragraph 11

Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

Whether jurors know of and exercise their responsibility to judge not only the facts, but the Law as well is to be seen. I'd bet that Judges try to hide this responsibility.

After reading this a few years ago I have committed myself to taking a Trial by Jury whenever harassed by the State. During juror selection one of my questions will be "Are you aware of your responsibility to Judge not only the facts in this case, but also the Law". Or something like that. I will also be attending Pro Se.

great post

thanks for that