[Peace-discuss] Re: Fully Informed Jury Association

[C. G. Estabrook]

Important stuff.  Perhaps we should do some work on circulating this 
information.  --CGE

Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> ... "If You Are Called For Jury Service" from the
> Fully Informed Jurors Assoc....
> 
> 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.
> 
http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=31