Colorado Official says jurors are answerable to God

[luvtinayothers]

And this guy's only a county treasurer...what the hell's he doing instructing jurors?

article here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=8&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_re_us/biblical_booklets)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by luvtinayothers
And this guy's only a county treasurer...what the hell's he doing instructing jurors?

article here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=8&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_re_us/biblical_booklets)

That guy definitely overstepped his bounds. It is perfectly acceptable for him to hold any views he wants and to promote those views at his own expense. It is NOT acceptable for him to use his office as a pulpit to promote those views. He printed the booklets with his own money which is good, but he should be distributing them onhis own time as well. Further, as a public oficial he needs to make it clear that these are his own views not the views of the county, I see no indication whether he did that or not, but I have a hunch.

[hgc]

The story should be labeled, "Colorado official promotes anarchy."

[arcticpenguin]

This reminds me why I want the dividing line between church and state to be made very very clear.

[CFLarsen]

A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.

Which "God"?

"You are above the law!" the booklet says.

BEEP! No, you're not. Only O.J. is.

Said Paschall: "I want people to understand the form of government that we have and the rights and freedoms that went before. If it raises eyebrows, I think it perhaps ends up waking people up."

Before what? The flood? The publication of "The Origin of Species"? The Beatles Breakup?

[LFTKBS]

In all the hubbub about Paschall's Jesusosity, we seem to have overlooked what's actually a rather good thing about those pamphlets: jury nullification.

Since the Zenger trial way back in 1735 (and even before that, IIRC), jury nullification has been the citizenry's penultimate defense against tyranny.* Jurors should gauge their verdict not only with repect to whether or not a law has been broken, but also whether or not that law is a just one.

You want to change the War on (Some) Drugs? Refuse to convict those accused of possession. Think that free speech is important? Refuse to convict those accused of distributing "obscene" material.

I don't agree with Paschall and I proabably wouldn't like him if we met. But it's hard to condemn someone based solely on his beliefs when both he and I consider jury nullification the most important aspect of a functioning democracy.

*the ultimate, of course, being an armed rebellion. Less practical, though.

[espritch]

You want to change the War on (Some) Drugs? Refuse to convict those accused of possession. Think that free speech is important? Refuse to convict those accused of distributing "obscene" material.

And of course if you don't like abortion, you can just refuse to convict the man who shoots the abortion doctor.

I understand your point but I think you are wrong. In a democracy, laws are not the made by 12 people in a jury box. They are the product of the legistlation passed by the elected representative of the people. If you don't like laws, you have a right to petition to have them changed. You have the right to support candidates who share your views. You even have the right to run for office yourself. You have no right to simply ignore laws because you personally don't agree with them.

This man is using his public position to advise jurors to ignore the same law he took an oath to uphold. He ought to be recalled.

[Brown]

If a prosecution of a defendant really strikes a jury as unjust, the jury will find a way to acquit the defendant.

It is one thing to recognize this fact; it is another thing to deliberately encourage jurors to disregard the law as a matter of course.

I've found that most proponents of so-called jury nullification advocate disregard of the law. I think that is despicable, and you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who didn't agree.

Jurors who engage in the practice consciously and deliberately violate their oaths as jurors, which in many jurisdictions is a punishable crime. Those who promote jury nullification, therefore, encourage citizens to commit a crime.

[CFLarsen]

Is this "Paschall's Wager"? :D

[evildave]

Cthulhu doesn't care what you do; he will swallow you anyway. True forgivenness.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by espritch


And of course if you don't like abortion, you can just refuse to convict the man who shoots the abortion doctor.

I understand your point but I think you are wrong. In a democracy, laws are not the made by 12 people in a jury box. They are the product of the legistlation passed by the elected representative of the people. If you don't like laws, you have a right to petition to have them changed. You have the right to support candidates who share your views. You even have the right to run for office yourself. You have no right to simply ignore laws because you personally don't agree with them.

Respectfully disagreed. Some trials are fundamentally unjust. Some laws are fundamentally unjust. I'm not saying that the jurors should throw out the law in every case, merely that there are times when justice is served not by "following orders," but by following basic tenets of morality.

Laws prohibiting murder are moral and just. Laws prohibiting the possession of, say, comic books or glass pipes or seditious libels are not.

Jury nullification isn't a new thing. Its effects are not always desirable. But I am far less worried of J.N. being used to acquit a murderer than I am of it not being used at all.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Brown
Jurors who engage in the practice consciously and deliberately violate their oaths as jurors, which in many jurisdictions is a punishable crime. Those who promote jury nullification, therefore, encourage citizens to commit a crime.

Such as noted anarchist Chief Justice John Jay: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." What a troublemaker.

Brown, I like you a lot, but I'm going to ask that you support with some form of evidence the wild statement that in some jurisdictions J.N. is a crime.

For more information, see http://www.fija.org/True%20or%20False.htm

[hgc]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Such as noted anarchist Chief Justice John Jay: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." What a troublemaker.

Brown, I like you a lot, but I'm going to ask that you support with some form of evidence the wild statement that in some jurisdictions J.N. is a crime.

For more information, see http://www.fija.org/True%20or%20False.htm I've never heard that quote, so I'm wondering: Is Jay referring to the law itself or to the application of the law in the case at hand?

For instance, the prosecution may present facts in a case which the jury finds to be true, but then the jury finds that the argument that the accused broke the law to be incorrect. Maybe there's a law that I can't sell fruit from my farmstand. I'm selling tomatoes; I am brought before the court; the jury agress that I was selling tomatoes. But then the jury says the law doesn't apply because a tomato is not a fruit.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Respectfully disagreed. Some trials are fundamentally unjust. Some laws are fundamentally unjust. I'm not saying that the jurors should throw out the law in every case, merely that there are times when justice is served not by "following orders," but by following basic tenets of morality.

In that case, the juror should declare bias and refuse to serve. That is the "out" for jurors who do not agree with a law pertinent to the trial in question.

I know you believe that some laws and trials are fundamentally unjust, and I agree that there certainly are a few. However, espritch is right - somebody who dislikes abortion then has the authority to intentionally let somebody get away with murdering a doctor because he feels abortion is fundamentally unjust - and whether you like it or not, you support him if you feel that jurors should be allowed to make such decisions. When you grant that power to juries, you cannot seperate your position from instances of that power's use simply because you do happen agree with the particular law in question, or don't believe the jury acted properly.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by hgc
I've never heard that quote, so I'm wondering: Is Jay referring to the law itself or to the application of the law in the case at hand?
Jay's quote is from Georgia v. Brailsford, and is paraphrased; I apologize. Here is a more complete version:

"It may not be amiss...to remind you of the good old rule, that on the question of fact, it is the province of the jury, and on the question of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But, it must be observed that by law...you have nevertheless a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, in controversy...both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."

Also see U.S. v. Moylan:

"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law. We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence."

[Brown]

In my home jurisdiction, jurors take two oaths. One, they take an oath to speak the truth ("voir dire") in response to questions put to them by the judges and the lawyers. Two, they take an oath to render a true verdict based upon the evidence and the law.

In a controversial case, the jurors are always asked whether they would apply the law given to them, and if they answer in the negative, they are excluded from the jury for cause. (This question is often asked as a matter of course in cases that are not controversial as well.) A juror who falsely says that he will apply the law, when he knows that he won't apply the law if it doesn't suit his fancy, commits a crime.

The oath to render a true verdict is similar, and applies to empaneled jurors. In some jurisdictions, the oath includes not coming to any conclusion about the case until all the evidence is in. Jurors who have made casual remarks such as, "Well, it sure sounds like he's guilty, doesn't it?" before all the evidence comes in have found themselves in very serious trouble. Judges treat this oath as a very serious matter.

As I have said, it is one thing to recognize that a jury will acquit a defendant if the jury thinks that a manifest injustice is being performed (and that such acquittal is unreviewable). In those cases, the jury hears the whole case before deciding that its sense of justice is offended. It is another thing to go into a courtroom as a potential juror, and, before hearing one speck of evidence, have the conscious predisposition that "I don't have to apply the law if I don't wanna." Those who argue for jury nullification argue for exactly that predisposition. They encourage jurors to lie under oath, and to decide cases arbitrarily and capriciously, rather than under law.

Moreover, any lawyer who argued to the jury that the jury ought to disregard the law would find himself in very serious trouble.

As has been noted by Justice Jay (and virtually every judge ever to wear a robe), a question of law is a matter for the court to decide. Juries are not allowed to overturn or make new laws, but (as hgc mentioned) they are allowed to apply the law to the facts. This is a key distinction. In many cases, the jury has "wiggle room" in applying the law to the facts. If the case is cut-and-dried (i.e., the defendant admits every element of the crime but thinks he ought to be acquitted anyway), the case will not be presented to the jury, and the judge will exclude evidence pertaining to any "injustice" in the law itself.

I understand your passion for the issue, LFTKBS, but you have to understand that violation of the oath is a very serious offense, and encouraging jurors to do so is also a serious offense.

[LFTKBS]

Brown: excellent post, and one to which I cannot fully reply at the moment. (Stupid work - I'll get back to the rest of it.) But let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

The hypothetical situation: the 116th Congress passes a bill called Patriots Against Protest (PAP), which is signed into law by President Liddy. PAP forbids even peaceful protest of government action, punishable by prison, and is blatantly unConstitutional. You receive a jury summons, and as it turns out, it's a PAP case. Would you admit that you found the law unConsititutional and have yourself excused? If not, what would you do?

By the way, I realize that this is a tremendously unlikely situation. Not as unlikely as I'd hope, but...

[hgc]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Brown: excellent post, and one to which I cannot fully reply at the moment. (Stupid work - I'll get back to the rest of it.) But let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

The hypothetical situation: the 116th Congress passes a bill called Patriots Against Protest (PAP), which is signed into law by President Liddy. PAP forbids even peaceful protest of government action, punishable by prison, and is blatantly unConstitutional. You receive a jury summons, and as it turns out, it's a PAP case. Would you admit that you found the law unConsititutional and have yourself excused? If not, what would you do?

By the way, I realize that this is a tremendously unlikely situation. Not as unlikely as I'd hope, but... It's an extreme case, but also a very good analogy. I think that a juror has an obligation to tell the truth when asked during selection if they could find the defendent guilty under this law.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hgc
It's an extreme case, but also a very good analogy. I think that a juror has an obligation to tell the truth when asked during selection if they could find the defendent guilty under this law.

I agree. I'd let the selectors know immediately that, since I don't agree with the law, I'd be unable to fairly sit on the jury in that trial.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Brown: excellent post, and one to which I cannot fully reply at the moment. (Stupid work - I'll get back to the rest of it.) But let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

The hypothetical situation: the 116th Congress passes a bill called Patriots Against Protest (PAP), which is signed into law by President Liddy. PAP forbids even peaceful protest of government action, punishable by prison, and is blatantly unConstitutional. You receive a jury summons, and as it turns out, it's a PAP case. Would you admit that you found the law unConsititutional and have yourself excused? If not, what would you do?

By the way, I realize that this is a tremendously unlikely situation. Not as unlikely as I'd hope, but...
A bad law can't be knocked down without a test case. If the jurors obey the laws, then those cases can proceed to appeals courts, where decisions of constitutionality are decided. I would propose that most bad laws are unconstitutional, in that they violate somebody's civil rights.

[LFTKBS]

To Joshua Korosi and hgc: thanks for the honest answer, but holy s***. Are there no circumstances in which you would be disobedient to the laws of the United States? And which is more ethical: freeing an innocent person under false pretenses, or condemning an innocent person to jail in the name of ethical conduct?

I'm all for the rule of law and all, finding it tremendously useful for a civil society and all, but there are some things more important than the sanctity - and I use that word deliberately - of Law.

I respect the U.S. Constitution more than the laws that are passed by the legislature, and I respect the ideals of freedom and democracy more than the Constitution. Surely I'm not alone in this?

[LFTKBS]

Note to self: misspelling unConstitutional makes you (me/us) look dumb. I sure am glad arcticpenguin immortalized that in his quote.) :hit:

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Brown If the case is cut-and-dried (i.e., the defendant admits every element of the crime but thinks he ought to be acquitted anyway), the case will not be presented to the jury, and the judge will exclude evidence pertaining to any "injustice" in the law itself.
I'm not arguing here for the right of the jury to decide a case capriciously. I'm not arguing that we deliberately seek to undermine the rule of law. As a juror, I would never decide a case before hearing the entire thing, but there'd have to be literally in-credible circumstances before I helped convict someone of a victimless crime or a violation of an unjust law. That's probably why I've never been on a jury.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge or a law enforcement officer, so my personal knowledge is going to be inferior to yours, Brown. So tell me: what should the jury in the Zenger case have done?

What should the juries have done to those who violated the Fugitive Slave Law?

Why even have juries? If the law and the courts are infallible, let's just have the judge decide! Why if this older, highly-educated white man says it's bad, we'd best listen up!

[Suddenly]

A government official is distributing material to potential jurors with the aim of affecting deliberations?

I think that could be a potential appeal / habeas issue for a convicted criminal defendant.


We covered the Jury Nullification thing in this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25102&perpage=40&highlight=jury%20nullification&pagenumber=5)


The short version is that the Jury has the power to acquit regardless of the law. This power is a byproduct of the prohibition of Double Jeopardy, and the right to a Jury trial.

However, no court has ever found error for a judge to instruct a jury that they must follow the law in that they must convict if all elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is true even in states where the constitution seems to create a right of the jury to determine law, like Georgia.

Also this: Originally posted by Brown If the case is cut-and-dried (i.e., the defendant admits every element of the crime but thinks he ought to be acquitted anyway), the case will not be presented to the jury, and the judge will exclude evidence pertaining to any "injustice" in the law itself.

Is not true in that such a case (a criminal case) would be presented to a jury, but is true that the judge would not allow the attorneys to argue for nullification. I've been there. Not fun cases to try. Absent a knowing waiver, a conviction cannot be had except by jury verdict, no matter the evidence.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
To Joshua Korosi and hgc: thanks for the honest answer, but holy s***. Are there no circumstances in which you would be disobedient to the laws of the United States? And which is more ethical: freeing an innocent person under false pretenses, or condemning an innocent person to jail in the name of ethical conduct?

I'm all for the rule of law and all, finding it tremendously useful for a civil society and all, but there are some things more important than the sanctity - and I use that word deliberately - of Law.

I respect the U.S. Constitution more than the laws that are passed by the legislature, and I respect the ideals of freedom and democracy more than the Constitution. Surely I'm not alone in this?


As a libertarian and one who is always suspicious of government, I agree with this fully.

Laws are meant to protect the people, not control them.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Brown: excellent post, and one to which I cannot fully reply at the moment. (Stupid work - I'll get back to the rest of it.) But let me ask you a hypothetical question, if I may.

The hypothetical situation: the 116th Congress passes a bill called Patriots Against Protest (PAP), which is signed into law by President Liddy. PAP forbids even peaceful protest of government action, punishable by prison, and is blatantly unConstitutional. You receive a jury summons, and as it turns out, it's a PAP case. Would you admit that you found the law unConsititutional and have yourself excused? If not, what would you do?

By the way, I realize that this is a tremendously unlikely situation. Not as unlikely as I'd hope, but...

If everyone was honest and said they wouldn't enforce the law they couldn't get a jury. Otherwise, I'm with the penguin that this is something the appellate courts would reverse.

I think better examples for jury nullification are when laws are used in questionable circumstances. Like in a case in a state with a "solid" age of consent of 18 where they charge an 18 year old with rape for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Things like that.

Wasn't this hypo pretty much the case in the WWI era? Sedition act?

[espritch]

Respectfully disagreed. Some trials are fundamentally unjust. Some laws are fundamentally unjust. I'm not saying that the jurors should throw out the law in every case, merely that there are times when justice is served not by "following orders," but by following basic tenets of morality.

Now if we could all just agree on what constitutes morality and justice, I suppose we could implement your system and do away with laws altogether. The problem is we don’t all agree on what is moral or just.

Laws prohibiting murder are moral and just. Laws prohibiting the possession of, say, comic books or glass pipes or seditious libels are not.

Case in point: you’d think murder would a pretty straight forward example of something that everyone agrees is immoral. Yet there are a lot of people in this country that would define abortion as murder. There are even some who define murdering an abortion doctor as a moral act since it prevents abortions. There are also a lot of people who wouldn’t agree with the assertion that possession of drug paraphernalia (small glass pipes) is moral. You need to learn to differentiate between your personal moral convictions and the laws of nature.

In a democracy, the decision as to what is moral or immoral and what moral issues are legitimate subjects for the law is decided by the majority and codified into law. The reason abortion is legal in America and shooting abortion doctors is illegal, is that the majority have decided that this should be the case.

I respect the U.S. Constitution more than the laws that are passed by the legislature, and I respect the ideals of freedom and democracy more than the Constitution. Surely I'm not alone in this?

You claim to respect the idea of democracy but you think you have a right to flout the laws created by a democracy if they don’t match your personal definition of morality. The people who wrote the constitution had a deep respect for freedom and democracy. Moreover, they understood that no one person should ever be allowed to be the ultimate arbiter of what is moral or just. Instead they put that power where is belongs, in the hand of the people: all of the people – even the ones you disagree with. Slavery didn’t end because some jurors refused to convict people who aided runaway slaves. It ended because the majority became convinced that it was wrong.

You have every right to hold moral views contrary to the views of the majority. But to believe that one's “superior” morality makes one above the law is just arrogant.

[LFTKBS]

Democracy is more than simple majority rule. Since the founding of the United States, the lawmaking bodies have never been about establishing just laws, but establishing power in the hands of the government, regardless of political alliance. There is no one on the side of the people: not the Supreme Court, not the Congress, and certainly not whichever old white guy is President at the time.

Maybe you haven't been to jail, maybe you've never even been pulled over, maybe you've never been the target of the government's power. Good for you. But those of us who have are well aware of the blasphemies that occur in the name of Law and in the name of Justice.

[hgc]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

I'm not arguing here for the right of the jury to decide a case capriciously. I'm not arguing that we deliberately seek to undermine the rule of law. As a juror, I would never decide a case before hearing the entire thing, but there'd have to be literally in-credible circumstances before I helped convict someone of a victimless crime or a violation of an unjust law. That's probably why I've never been on a jury.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge or a law enforcement officer, so my personal knowledge is going to be inferior to yours, Brown. So tell me: what should the jury in the Zenger case have done?

What should the juries have done to those who violated the Fugitive Slave Law?

Why even have juries? If the law and the courts are infallible, let's just have the judge decide! Why if this older, highly-educated white man says it's bad, we'd best listen up! I can appreciate what you're saying here, but juries are never going to be able to solve these problems on any kind of useful scale. These laws are either unconstitutional, and should be solved in higher courts through appeal, or they should be dealt with in the political arena.Democracy is more than simple majority rule. Since the founding of the United States, the lawmaking bodies have never been about establishing just laws, but establishing power in the hands of the government, regardless of political alliance. There is no one on the side of the people: not the Supreme Court, not the Congress, and certainly not whichever old white guy is President at the time.

Maybe you haven't been to jail, maybe you've never even been pulled over, maybe you've never been the target of the government's power. Good for you. But those of us who have are well aware of the blasphemies that occur in the name of Law and in the name of Justice.I think it's an error to say that lawmaking bodies were "not about establishing just laws" before the founding of the U.S. Sure the U.S. was a pretty rare type of political animal in the 1770-80's, but the idea of justice wasn't exactly invented here. Of course there's your justice and there's my justice, which is to say that justice is in the eye of the beholder, and for sure the prevailing sense of what constitutes justice has evolved here and in lots of places over the last 200 years.

I find it hard to separate government from "the people" so completely as you do. Call me idealistic, but I strongly believe in the nature of this republic as being of the people, etc. Sure, powerful (monied) constiuencies hold way too much sway over much of the political process, and the laws that result, but there are ample cases of the courts backing the rights of the little guy, especially in the areas of due process in criminal proceedings.

Once again, unjust laws exist, and they should be addressed on appeal or in the voting booth. But anyone who lies under oath to get on a jury so that they can buck the law and deliver the verdict they want is undermining the civilized nature of our society. I, for one, would tell the judge and counsel that I can't convict/aquit according to the law, and then the chips fall.

[LFTKBS]

Well, hgc, the reason that I said "Since the founding of the United States" was because I'm subject to the laws of the U.S. and not, say, Cuba.

And re: "but there are ample cases of the courts backing the rights of the little guy, especially in the areas of due process in criminal proceedings."

Sometimes, I guess. But more often it's a case of someone like George Jackson spending ten years in prison for the theft of seventy dollars. Jackson wasn't even the thief, but in the thief's car. Yay, America.

Or the due process that freed the police officers who shot Amadou Diallo 41 times. There's some justice for you.

[espritch]

Sometimes, I guess. But more often it's a case of someone like George Jackson spending ten years in prison for the theft of seventy dollars. Jackson wasn't even the thief, but in the thief's car. Yay, America.

I'm not familiar with this case so I can't really draw too many conclusions, but I would like to ask a few questions. Was this Mr Jackson's first conviction, or does he have a long wrap sheet? Was he the driver? Did he know that the other people in the car had stolen the money? Is there a compelling reason to believe Mr Jackson's version of the story?

I should also probably point out that unless this was only the latest in a series of convictions, it is highly unlikely that Mr Jackson will serve even half that sentence. And if this is the latest in a series, then I think prison is exactly where he belongs.

I've had my house burglarized twice. On the third try, they got scared off because I finally installed an alarm. It still cost me over $100 to fix the damage they did to my door. Partly as a result, I tend to have very little sympathy for thieves (specific dollar amounts are irrelevant) although I am of the opinion that public floggings would be a more effective deterrent.

[LFTKBS]

Here's a more accurate description of George Jackson's crime and punishment.

"After his release on September 18, 1960, Jackson allegedly drove the getaway car after his friend robbed a gas station of seventy-one dollars. He agreed to confess in return for a light sentence; the judge gave him one-to-life, which became life imprisonment."

But read the rest of it, at

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/African_American_Studies/wayland_fac_seminar/interview/george_jackson.html