[Peace-discuss] Re: [CUCPJ Discuss] Jury stands up to judge the law; not just the facts.

[Ricky Baldwin]

Excellent article!  Thanks!  And, I think, it would
make a great handout, too ...

Ricky

--- Tanya Parker <habariconnection at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jury stands up to judge the law; not just the
> facts."
> 
> MUST READ ARTICLE!
> 
>
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=24518

“I Don’t Care What the Judge Said!”
by Joel Turtel
April 22, 2007 02:00 PM EST
“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve
been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We
all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re
the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I
got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The
judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this
jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into
a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote
acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The
jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”
“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” Dillard
ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was
found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the
law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What
more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury
foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s,
and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John
Straun’s head in.
Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a
straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes,
and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about
all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be
fearless.
John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I
happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to
judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history
in this country. A jury has the right to judge the
law, not just the facts.”
Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered.
Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You
think you know more than the judge? What history are
you talking about?”
John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an
engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more
than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on
this jury, I did a little research about the history
of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t
know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a
sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000
years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a
thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges
because they removed jurors who refused to convict and
replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors
they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on
trial.”
“Jury nullification also goes back to the very
beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights
our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding
Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against
tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized
the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten
amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second
President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson,
third President and author of the Declaration of
Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First
Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that
juries have the right and duty to judge not only the
facts in a case, but also the law, according to their
conscience.”
“Not only that, more recent court decisions have
reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,”
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right
of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the
Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same
principal.”
Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how
come the judge didn’t tell us this?”
“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court
decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in
1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries
have the right to judge the law, but that a judge
doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute,
huh? And guess what happened after this decision?
Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”
“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges
do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They
hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why
judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law,
and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying
anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy
Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The
judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut
up about jury nullification.”
“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell
you a little more about jury nullification. Did you
ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear
of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws
were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over
those laws that they consistently refused to convict
people who violated them. They refused to convict
because they knew that these laws were unjust and
tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these
laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t
convict, the government couldn’t make these laws
stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave
up.”
“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve
been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as
Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A
tyrannical government is telling people that they
can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said
people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A
tyrannical law is telling people what they can or
can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us
or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government
own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard?
Do you drink beer?”
Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”
“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws
telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore.
Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”
Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the
question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”
John Straun turned to the others around the table.
“You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You
like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law
saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because
the exercise might give him a heart attack? You,
Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all
the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty
hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing
down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and
they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You,
Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows
that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you
like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes?
What if they could crash in the door of your house
without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your
house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs?
Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like
Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes
you hid under your mattress?”
“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a
crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t
they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If
you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had
Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till
they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t
banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million
cigarette smokers in this country who would scream
bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and
other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a
small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have
any political clout.”
Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others
started talking among themselves. John Straun started
seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what
he had said.
“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe
Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking
marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff
when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana
in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college.
Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs
one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what
about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”
John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he
stood very straight, and he looked very sure of
himself. He looked from one to another of them.
He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to
vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy
Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a
tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants
the power to control you. I told you that many juries
like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s
instructions. They stood up for liberty against a
tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you
va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or
the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to
judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find
the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who
defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in
to this judge?”
“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun
said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or
brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say
Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to
prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders
third possession charge. You know the “three strikes
and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians
passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times
on possession, the judge now has no leeway in
sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years
in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on
trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana,
for doing something that should not be a crime in the
first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to
prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint,
hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”
“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like
Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we
speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking
marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent
to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but
themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a
crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It
has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it
right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only
thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is
you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re
lost, the country is lost.”
“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict,
because the drug laws are unjust and a moral
obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans
our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these
same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m
asking of all of you.”
John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and
all the others around the table. They looked back at
him, and it seemed that their backs began to
straighten up, and they no longer complained about
going home. They were quiet. Then they talked
passionately amongst each other.
Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom
and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked
Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned
when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the
judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of
the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly
at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.



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