|
Is this like the people who say you don't "really" have to pay taxes?
or is it legitimate? Can judges really harrass or fine or jail you if
you try to use the principles of jury nullification?
I have read the literature, and while it DOES seem to be the true law,
I am wondering if judges might still have the power to make your life
miserable if you try to exercise your legitimate rights to jury
nullification?
|
| |
| |
Mr. Jimi wrote:
Is this like the people who say you don't "really" have to pay taxes?
or is it legitimate? Can judges really harrass or fine or jail you if
you try to use the principles of jury nullification?
I have read the literature, and while it DOES seem to be the true law,
I am wondering if judges might still have the power to make your life
miserable if you try to exercise your legitimate rights to jury
nullification?
How would a judge go about "establishing" that a jury engaged in
nullification without an admission from all the jurors that he/she
had done so?
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:28:42 -0400, Frank Lodge <nothanx@trash.com>
wrote:
Mr. Jimi wrote:
How would a judge go about "establishing" that a jury engaged in
nullification without an admission from all the jurors that he/she
had done so?
There was a Colorado case where some lady bragged about her
nullification, so the judge went after her. I think she hung the jury
11-1. What do you call the extremely common situation where a juror
just goes along with the rest in order to get of there? Or the jury
consults a Ouija board to decide the case? Isn't stuff like that just
as bad as nullification?
|
| |
| |
Frank Lodge wrote:
Mr. Jimi wrote:
How would a judge go about "establishing" that a jury
engaged in nullification without an admission from all the
jurors that he/she
had done so?
Juror Laura Kriho's Conviction
--First Conviction on Newly Created Crime
If you had any doubts that the "War on Drugs" was not getting out of hand, or
that we are not living up to this country's ideals, this should remove those
doubts.
This past week Laura Kriho was found guilty of a newly-created crime. She was
the holdout juror in a drug case. The WOD has eroded our rights more than most
Americans realize, and here is another sad example:
Jury Rights Under Assault
On February 10, 1997, Colorado 1st Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto
found Laura Kriho guilty of contempt of court, for failure during jury
selection, to volunteer information concerning her opinions and experiences. The
court found Ms. Kriho deliberately withheld and concealed her views on drug laws
and her own prior experience with a drug arrest - despite the fact she was never
asked questions on these matters.
STATEMENT FROM PAUL GRANT, MS. KRIHO'S ATTORNEY
A new legal duty has been created in Colorado by the Court in convicting Ms.
Kriho: the duty of potential jurors to volunteer information during jury
selection, concerning their political beliefs and attitudes, and concerning
their life's experiences, if they think the court wants the information -
despite the fact they are not specifically asked pertinent
questions.
Laura Kriho is the first person convicted of violating this newly minted crime
of failure to volunteer information during jury selection. Evidence that Ms.
Kriho harbored secret views on the wisdom of the drug laws was obtained from
statements Ms. Kriho allegedly made during jury deliberations.
Ms. Kriho was acquitted of perjury during jury selection, but found guilty of
concealing her beliefs. No longer is it enough to honestly answer the questions
you are asked - now you also have to answer the questions you were not asked,
but that you "knew" the judge wanted answered.
If this new legal duty is affirmed by Colorado's appellate courts, future jurors
will need to be advised of their rights during jury selection. Even worse,
jurors will need to be advised that any statement made during deliberations may
later be used against them in a criminal prosecution, for failure to volunteer
an opinion or experience during jury selection.
One wonders whether Colorado courts will have counsel available for jurors
unable to afford a lawyer.
Laura Kriho's prosecution and Judge Nieto's verdict will have a chilling effect
on jury service and jury deliberations. Fewer citizens will be willing to serve,
and open and honest discussion in the jury room will be suppressed. We are
optimistic that Colorado's appellate courts will reverse Laura Kriho's
outrageous conviction, and repudiate the trial court's attack on the jury system
so essential to the American system of justice.
PAUL GRANT
Paul Grant, Attorney at Law
11911 Highway 83, Suite 205
Parker CO 80134
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/kriho.new.htm
|
| |
| |
"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote
There was a Colorado case where some lady bragged about her
nullification, so the judge went after her. I think she hung the jury
11-1.
Laura Kriho probably- she failed to inform the prosecutor of a condition he
didn't ask about-
She prevailed ultimately- there's a website about it.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:56:13 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com>
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:28:42 -0400, Frank Lodge <nothanx@trash.com>
wrote:
There was a Colorado case where some lady bragged about her
nullification, so the judge went after her. I think she hung the jury
11-1. What do you call the extremely common situation where a juror
just goes along with the rest in order to get of there? Or the jury
consults a Ouija board to decide the case? Isn't stuff like that just
as bad as nullification?
No, it's worse. There's nothing bad about nullification. That's why
juries are made up of your peers instead of prosecutors.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:19:56 -0600, "_News Server_"
<news@usenet.org>
But anti-smokers are doing so much more than that.
More than what?
No, because their ultimate goal is to ban smoking
altogether.
No, that's your pathetic Smoker Strawman you fools
set up. We don't want you to stop smoking, you generate
MILLIONS of $$ in tax revenue, and when society finishes
outlawing all places outside your own home for smoking,
we've solved yet another problem, you'll be doomed to
remain inside your own home, all the time, since you don't
dare venture outside lest your irresistible drug cravings set in.
They claim it will "save lives"
We don't want to save your life, loser. I hope you smoke
3x more than you do now. Go for it.
or "it's for the children".
I don't give a @$#* about your lowlife children, you don't
either otherwise you wouldn't smoke around them. You
are free to use and abuse your own children and family
as you see fit.
It's control stupid.
Yep, the control of PUBLIC spaces by society.
Now, as to your pathetic control by BigTobacco,
you'll have to take that up with them.
And contrary to the pathetic tobacco addict Strawman
you scumbags always trot out, no one really wants YOU to
quit smoking.
Yes, they do.
No, we don't.
You don't speak for all anti-smokers.
And you don't speak for all tobacco addicts.
How generous of you - many want to ban it there too.
Why? moron. I want you to smoke, I want you to suffer at the
hands of your own putrid, self-induced addiction, I think it's hilarious.
And as long as you're inside your own stinky abode, no one
gives a @$#*. You make me $$, I have stock in BigTobacco, you make
society $$ in taxes, as we don't care if you wither and die inside your
own, self-created prison.
|
| |
| |
So there is no solid answer as to whether one does indeed have the
right to "jury nullification"?
So it IS akin to "you don't have to pay taxes, really"?
That is, it is probably the Truth, but the gummit (in this case, the
judges) won't let you get away with it, because they can do whatever
the @$#* they want.
|
| |
| |
DanKaye wrote:
So there is no solid answer as to whether one does indeed have the
right to "jury nullification"?
So it IS akin to "you don't have to pay taxes, really"?
That is, it is probably the Truth, but the gummit (in this case, the
judges) won't let you get away with it, because they can do whatever
the @$#* they want.
When I was on jury duty (3 times in 3 months, Cecil County, MD you serve
for 3 months, called in maybe 6 times during that period), before we
were sat on the jury we had to take an oath to base our decision on the
laws as described to us, and as to the evidence presented. If jury
nullification is the freeing of a defendent because you didn't like the
law go against the oath you took.
Can you be prosecuted, admonished, etc by the legal system for breaking
that oath?
|
| |
| |
DanKaye wrote:
When I was on jury duty (3 times in 3 months, Cecil County, MD you serve
for 3 months, called in maybe 6 times during that period), before we
were sat on the jury we had to take an oath to base our decision on the
laws as described to us, and as to the evidence presented. If jury
nullification is the freeing of a defendent because you didn't like the
law go against the oath you took.
Can you be prosecuted, admonished, etc by the legal system for breaking
that oath?
What you can do is keep your mouth shut about your real reasons and just say
you don't agree with the evidence or you have a reasonable doubt.
And ethically I don't feel bound by any oath that was coerced from me.
|
| |
| |
John P Reber wrote:
DanKaye wrote:
When I was on jury duty (3 times in 3 months, Cecil County,
MD you serve for 3 months, called in maybe 6 times during
that period), before we were sat on the jury we had to take
an oath to base our decision on the laws as described to
us, and as to the evidence presented. If jury nullification
is the freeing of a defendent because you didn't like the
law go against the oath you took.
Can you be prosecuted, admonished, etc by the legal system
for breaking that oath?
In this case, not likely.
|
| |
| |
|
