[Peace-discuss] Re: [CUCPJ Announce] Twelve Angry Men

[Ricky Baldwin]

I'll look forward to it, too, Carol!  And thanks to
John and Carl and everybody else who chimed in with
thoughts on jury nullification.  (one more short essay
at the end, from the fascinating website Danielle
mentioned - http://www.fija.org)

I just want to add one more point, that this is not
the only way that juries are skewed, as I think many
of us are (perhaps painfully) aware.  Before you even
get to the point where the judge asks you this
unwarranted question, about applying the law blindly,
lawyers from both sides can ask all sorts of questions
and jurors may be excluded for any reason or no reason
(to borrow a phrase from labor law, or lack thereof).

The lawyers do not have to give their reasons, in
other words, so jurors can be kicked off for their
race, religion, occupation, family history,
lifestyles, hobbies, beliefs about victimless crimes,
etc.  I had a professor in college who was excluded
from a capital murder trial jury because he did not
own a gun.

Interesting notions of justice we have in this
country.

Ricky

p.s. "If You Are Called For Jury Service" from the
Fully Informed Jurors Assoc. at the bottom...

--- "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> At 09:01 AM 4/17/2007, Carol Ammons wrote:
> 
> >BE, peace.  We will watch this movie within the
> next couple of months and 
> >have a discussion about it on UPTV.  It's a great
> example of how 
> >juries/citizens must put their personal hangups
> aside and seek 
> >justice.  BE, just.
> 
> 
> It's a fascinating movie on several levels - shot in
> black and white at a 
> time before juries had women or minorities on them. 
> A movie for the ages, 
> with important lessons for us all.  Good choice.
> 
> John Wason
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/announce-communitycourtwatch.org
> 


If You Are Called For Jury Service

Don't worry! Be happy! Look at jury service as an
opportunity to "do good" for yourself and others. It's
your chance to help the justice system deliver
justice, which is absolutely essential to a free
society.

Also, you can do more "political good" as a juror than
in practically any other way as a citizen: your vote
on the verdict is also a measure of public opinion on
the law itself--an opinion which our lawmakers are
likely to take seriously. Short of being elected to
office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more
powerful impact on the rules we live by than you will
as a trial juror.

However, unless you are fully informed of your powers
as a juror, you may be manipulated by the less
powerful players in the courtroom into delivering the
verdict they want, instead of what justice would
require. That is why this was written--to give you
information that you're not likely to receive from the
attorneys, or even from the judge.

Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so
here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it
through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may
feel that answering some of the questions asked of you
would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse
to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance
to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially
if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a
juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms
about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal
that you're bright, educated, or are interested in
serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your
conscience be your guide.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme
Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to
follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that
matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at
all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law,
but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind
that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may
regard all "instructions" as advice.

Understanding the full context in which an illegal act
was committed is essential to deciding whether the
defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict application
of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what
about justice? If the jurors agree that, beyond a
reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged, then
"context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you
can live with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go
to you, so be sure to ask the judge how you can pose
questions to witnesses, so that you can learn the
complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it
out. 

When they believe justice requires it, jurors can
refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to
consider whether the law itself is wrong (including
whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied
for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled
out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government
muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights
violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime
wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against
the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that
a verdict of guilty would give the government too much
power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember
that you can refuse to apply any law that violates
your conscience.

Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will
assume the defendant "must be guilty of something".
But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to
betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If
you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything,
then vote "not guilty" on all counts.

You can't be punished for voting according to your
conscience. Judges (and other jurors) often pressure
hold-out jurors into abandoning their true feelings
and voting with the majority "...to avoid the expense
of a hung jury and mistrial". But you don't have to
give in. Why? Because...

Hung juries are "OKAY". If voting your conscience
should lead to a hung jury, not to worry, you're doing
the responsible thing. There is no requirement that
you must reach a verdict. And the jury you hang may be
significant as one of a series of hung juries sending
messages to the legislature that the law you're
working with has problems, and it's time for a change.
If you want to reach consensus, however, one possible
way is to remind your fellow jurors that...

Jurors have the power to reduce charges against the
defendant, provided that "lesser included offenses"
exist in law (ask the judge to list and explain them,
and the range of potential punishments that go with
each). Finding guilt at a lower level than charged can
be appropriate in cases where the defendant has indeed
victimized someone, but not so seriously as the
original charges would indicate. And, if it will be up
to the judge to decide the sentence, it's within the
power of the jury to find the defendant guilty of a
reduced charge which will, at most, entail the amount
of punishment it thinks is appropriate.

The Jury Power Page hopes the above information helps
you to find a verdict that you believe is
conscientious and just, a verdict which you can
therefore be proud to discuss with friends, family,
legal professionals, the community or the media,
should any of them want to know what happened, how,
and why.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com