Jury Nullification: A Peaceful Lawful Way to Combat the for Profit Police State

One of the most powerful rights you have as an American juror is the ability to not only judge the case for which you sit, but to judge the merits of the law.  This right is often suppressed by judges and prosecutors as it could render the vast majority of legislation null and void, much to the chagrin of the state.

With Americans facing an alarming risk of criminal prosecution, there is no better time for a mass awakening in the jury box to combat the misinformation trotted out by judges and prosecutors who mislead their “peers” of their constitutional power.

This part of the Police State has a weakness that can be infiltrated. Jury nullification is your right as a juror to decide with your conscience and say no to unjust laws that are set by legislation.

Currently, more than 90% of criminal cases never appear before a jury, people charged with crimes just forgo their constitutional rights and just plead guilty and pay the fine. This changes the game in the justice system. The truth is that the tyrannical government has intentionally designed the system to guarantee that the jury trial system that’s clearly in the Constitution is to be hidden so it’s not used against them.

A Defendant is being tried for disobeying a man-made law, but to their advantage one informed juror is there to say that since there was no victim, there was no crime. Then a person is taken off the road to being fined, locked in a cage, and held against their will by a group of armed authoritarians.

The system of mass incarceration depends entirely on the steady stream of misinformation it imposes on the humans it looks to control. If overnight everyone charged with victimless crimes exercised their constitutional rights, the shortage of judges, lawyers, and cops would be exposed right away in the handling of overflowing jury trial cases.

Can we just Imagine if the number of people demanding their trial rights just doubled or tripled in occurrence? It would be absolute chaos for the justice system. This immediate crisis would ‘bullet train’  mass incarcerations to the number one priority for judges and politicians. They would only be left with the option to either throw out a lot of the ‘criminal’ cases filed, for example drug possession, disobeying unjust laws, and victimless crimes. Or go with the more difficult option and try to amend the Constitution to turn the tables into their favor. Crashing the system by being informed and exercising our rights is an achievable concept. Even the dissolution of the Drug War could be commenced with this powerful tool. Sparing the destruction of innocent lives on the civilian side and senseless overreach on the police side. Leaving it to the individual to decide what to put into their own bodies without being raided, kidnapped, and locked up for a precious portion of their life.

The advocating for jury nullification concerns local prosecutors, therefore supporters of jury nullification in several U.S. cities have raised the ire of many judges and prosecutors.  So scared of the distribution of knowledge pertaining to jury nullification being presented judges have had some activists arrested.  Government fearing ‘We the People’ is the direction that the wind needs to blow.
Jury nullification without a doubt gets under the skin of judges, prosecutors, and all the petty tyrants. The jury nullification process is also one of the last strongholds of Freedom that we have in our technocratic driven society. With this spear, and millions of citizens willing to unleash them, then maybe we’ll really be defined as ‘Land of the Free’.

Clay Conrad’s book, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine is described as the most important book on the independence of juries since Lysander Spooner’s Trial by Jury in 1852. It is extremely researched and balanced.

The Fully Informed Jury Association also provides a large amount of resources, links, and up to date information on the rights and responsibilities of jury duty.

The Second President of the United States, John Adams said in 1771  “It’s not only ….(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court

In the case (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

Alan Scheflin and Jon Van Dyke wrote (“Jury Nullification: the Contours of a Controversy,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No.4, 1980): ): “The arguments for opposing the nullification instruction are, in our view, deficient because they fail to weigh the political advantages gained by not lying to the jury…What impact will this deception have on jurors who felt coerced into their verdict by the judge’s instructions and who learn, after trail, that they could have voted their consciences and acquitted? Such a juror is less apt to respect the legal system.”
The late Justice William C. Goodloe (1919-1997) of the Washington State Supreme Court, an advocate of jury nullification, strongly suggested that this instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases:

“You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed.”

Leave a Reply