Nor do I have any assurances of your motives, or the reason for your objections to a basic right.I have no assurance of your the breadth and depth of your knowledge relevant to whatever law is relevant, no expectation of your impartiality, and no faith in your ability to legislate for the assurance of domestic tranquility, et cetera. I certainly did not vote for you as my legislative representative.
It is you who defines this to be an abuse of the system. Clearly you and the Constitution are not in agreement here.It is my duty as a citizen to revile those who would abuse the justice system as a back-door attempt to influence law towards their whims and biases.
such as...There are valid reasons one may have to participate in jury nullification,.
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit, UNITED STATES v. THOMAS:Jimmy, I applaud your dedication to our Constitutional protections.
I am surprised that State law could trump Fed law here. I doubt that would stand if it were taken to a higher court. The State does not have the right to reject rights granted at the Federal level.
A discussion on the sovereign power e of jury trial outcomes misses the point. The courts have also ruled that the legal system has the right to remove you as a juror for an "obvious violation of a juror's oath".The power of nullification has been argued in the courts many times and has won out....
All too true. Shirley Sherrod's father was murdered (shot in the back) by a white farmer in front of 3 witnesses. The all-white grand jury refused to indict.I also noticed that you didn't mention an important part of the history of jury nullification - when whites who were who lynched blacks were set free by juries exercising this power.
Really? Where? The word "jury" appears four times, and never with the word "independent" in front of it. It does say "impartial" once, in the 6th Amendment, and this is usually interpreted as willing to "decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented."The independence of the jury is required by the Constitution.
It is not for us to decide the meanings of laws, but for the court. I posted a federal court decision in my post #27 and which I repeat below:Really? Where?
I would add that the independence of the jury is tied up in the existence of the jury. The alternative to a jury would be to have the judge pass the verdict. What need is there of a dependent jury? What would be its purpose or meaning?We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
And I can't find anything -- your own quote included -- that suggests the courts have ruled to protect this "power" for any deeper reason than policing it would have too much collateral damage. In fact, this was explicit in the ruling I linked. You are guilty of abusing a freedom meant to protect those who would take their duty seriously.It is not for us to decide the meanings of laws, but for the court. I posted a federal court decision in my post #27 and which I repeat below: