An Introduction to Jury Nullification

I serve as the Illinois State Contact for the Fully Informed Jury Association. My goal is to spread the idea that people serving as jurors have a right to question the validity, application, and justness of the law being used to prosecute an accused individual for a crime. There is no law which punishes or otherwise makes a crime of jury nullification. Jurors cannot be questioned about the reasoning behind their voting not guilty. If an individual is being prosecuted for a non-violent offense or for a law that is unjust, a juror has a right to vote not guilty even though the evidence of the individual having actually committed the crime is conclusive. If a juror were to find a law oppressive or unjust they could choose to spare the accused from unjust punishment by voting not guilty without any fear of retaliation or punishment.

However, most judges, when instructing jurors, will say the jurors must accept the law as handed down by the judge, and if the State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they have no choice but to vote guilty. That is a bald-faced lie. Judges have no authority to compel jurors to vote in such a way. However, there is no law against judges lying to jurors, which they do all the time. If a law is oppressive and an individual tried for violating that law, and the judge instructs jurors that the only option is to vote guilty if the facts support the charge, then of what use is a jury? If it is a simple equation of do facts = charge and law = what judge says then jurors are unnecessary. If the judge dictates to the jury then he determines the guilt.

If a jury witnesses a trial where they believe the law is unjust, the facts tenuous, and the treatment of the accused harsh or abusive; yet the presentation by the prosecution to be conclusive and in accordance with the judges instruction, then they are left helpless to save the accused from punishment. They must suppress what their common sense and conscience tell them is right in order to follow the orders of a judge and place a man they believe has been treated unfairly behind bars. The jurors are nothing but puppets.

I urge any of you who are called to act as jurors to take that role with passion and begin to strike down unjust laws by voting not guilty regardless of whether the facts support the charge and regardless of the judges instructions. I also urge any of you charged with a crime to demand a trial by jury. When you agree to a bench trial you agree to let a judge arbitrarily determine, not your innocence or guilt, but how you will atone to the State for your transgression. You are not presumed innocent with a judge. You are presumed guilty. A presumption of innocence is an instruction handed down to jurors, but ignored by judges.

Remember, you have NO duty to obey the orders of a judge. You are free to vote your conscience. You have no obligation to disclose the reason for your vote and cannot be made to explain.

You must ask yourself, do I have a right to take the freedom of another human being for doing something that the State objects to, but to which no other individual was harmed? Is disobedience a crime, especially when the law disobeyed is invasive, oppressive, and unjust?

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

5 thoughts on “An Introduction to Jury Nullification

  1. E.I.A says:

    Anyone involved in a consensual or victimless crime has a pretty sure verdict from me; one which I will leave to the greasy imaginations of the quivering FBI strumpets who likely scour this blog. 

    The best way to *not* break an FBI agent’s neck?
    Don’t yell “activist” from behind.

    • Mark McCoy says:

      You can be sure they do visit this site. Check the list of visitors on this page http://markmccoy.com/wp/2011/01/01/footprints-in-the-sand-who-has-been-here-visitors-of-the-month/
      You’ll usually see homeland security, doj, and others keeping a watchful eye on the pulse of dissent.
      It goes to show you they are more fearful of thought than deeds. I promote peaceful revolution through withdrawing consent and disobedience, which if permitted to take root in other like-minds is more powerful than a displaced act of violence.
      We are already out gunned, but not out manned. Unless they resort to the wholesale slaughter of people, if we begin to confront government with inaction, their power will dwindle. They want to goad us into a fight. I deny their existence at the outset. To fight them is to fight myself, because the act alone goes against my conscience.

      • E.I.A says:

         I myself have a loathing for violence, unless it is done to myself or an innocent other – in which case, you know the story. As for fighting corruption by force; that is futile. If intelligence and wisdom fails, “they” pretty much win.

        I did want to mention a bit more about surveillance, and perhaps some of the elements behind it. From what I have *heard* of the leaked LulzSec docs, there is nothing epic, but there are a few revealing things, *perhaps*. One thing I have *heard* which I find disturbing not just for the event itself, is that of the two brother-officers who were murdered by what I gather were alleged to be “sovereign citizens”. I was about ready to stay clear of your website after being warned by someone that you might be a big bad terrible mean man, when I saw that you quite explicitly stated that your are not affiliated. Anyway, those leaked docs I’ve *heard* contained a video which was clearly intended only for officers. In it you see officers making a routine traffic stop, when suddenly a young white male (“sovereign citizen”) exits the passenger-side and fires an assault rifle killing both officers. It is quite horrific and even had me ready to kick some ass. But, the message is that the “new terrorists” are domestic, and that if the officers had been properly informed and thus aware of the “sovereign citizen” movement, then they might have avoided this tragedy. This also bothered me. It never mentioned anything about how many lives reckless and irresponsible law-enforcement has ruined. And it was also just one example of a horrid – but  – isolated event which is actually more “extremely rare” than “extreme” when compared to myriad other examples of needless death. I also remember the hideous footage of the Georgia officer who suffered a similar fate via some crazed lunatic with another assault rifle (during a routine traffic stop). While the public seldom see such “motivational” videos, I suspect law-enforcement officials view these films as protocol. They are powerful indoctrination tools, and I can sympathize with those who are moved to sanctioned madness by them. My point here is that I think I saw a subtle trend in the propaganda of the other side – the one the “authorities” are subject to. I strongly urge people to find and read these and other such documents and videos to get an idea of the psychology involved. It will only offer limited perspective, but valuable despite. There are also extremely graphic photographs of drug cartel torture scenes which could turn any decent man into a vigilant cop instantly. Your imagination is likely insufficient to picture these images. Yet what about our own civilians? Public safety is clearly very low on the law-enforcement priority list; at least for less economically endowed districts.

        So, being even erroneously associated with such a movement is obviously a guaranteed way to get watched – and probably enough, by *unqualified* agents. I still have not studied up on the mentioned movement, but have caught a few references to Oklahoma, etc, and am still not frightened by it any more than I am by a rogue bureaucracy of fools spying on anything that doesn’t believe Fox News. And I do not call every military personnel a terrorist because of what wikileaks has shown.

        Someone told me to not link to your website. I considered it. But I read your material and could see no evidence of anything which should warrant censorship, and more so, nothing of danger. I also helplessly acknowledge the rationality behind some of it, as I suspect even the occasional agent does as well. I decided to keep the link despite warnings, which I honestly think is unfortunately symptomatic of social paranoia to even consider otherwise.

        Ahh. Regarding IPs and pestilence: Keep in mind, while in principle the Gov is supposed to behave transparently; such things as the Patriot Act, various emergency powers, and scores of other recent hybrid laws have permitted them to avoid this. I have seen a few of the IPs you’ve listed, but they do have ways of visiting undetected. Depending on your ISP and server, they may have a lot more ability than you want to realize. I posted an article about anonymouse(dot)org visits not even showing up on the WasUp stats. Many of the IPs you listed are just service providers, and some are undoubtedly bots. But obviously the DHS is the DHS..

        The internet is under attack right now, and it aint from cyber terrorists, ….well, depending on what you think of the pentagoon. The framework has essentially been built for massive negative changes, and they are simply doing some touchup before launching a full frontal assault on it. I am not sure how much you know about there cyber policies, but you are welcome to visit my site and look in the CyberSec | IT section and get at least a little intro. I have much work to do, and hope to improve it.

      • phil says:

        Marc, I’m doing research on the vehicle code. Would like to hear from by return email. I have an active case headed for the high courts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: