Reno Gonzales Has Partial Mistrial Because He Talks About Jury Nullification

[porcupine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkV9TVD7uFI

[brianewart]

Jury nullification isn't technically legal. It isn't codified. It isn't supposed to happen. The only reason it even exists is because of double-jeopardy. We can't have a trial without a jury, and once the jury gives it's verdict, the case is closed.

As a lawyer, you aren't allowed to tell the Jury that this is an option, because while it technically is, it legally isn't.

[Melissa]

Jury nullification isn't technically legal. It isn't codified. It isn't supposed to happen. The only reason it even exists is because of double-jeopardy. We can't have a trial without a jury, and once the jury gives it's verdict, the case is closed.

As a lawyer, you aren't allowed to tell the Jury that this is an option, because while it technically is, it legally isn't.

I am no lawyer so not trying to argue at all but I really have to disagree with this--This is the last and final checks on laws and I wish more people understood what it is

[sratiug]

Jury nullification isn't technically legal. It isn't codified. It isn't supposed to happen. The only reason it even exists is because of double-jeopardy. We can't have a trial without a jury, and once the jury gives it's verdict, the case is closed.

As a lawyer, you aren't allowed to tell the Jury that this is an option, because while it technically is, it legally isn't.

I believe you are misinformed. Please visit http://www.fija.org/ for the facts of jury nullification. As a lawyer, you are a member of the BAR association, an unamerican organization that has nothing to do with law and violates constitutional prohibitions against titles of nobility.

The jury is your defense against tyrrany of the government, and the key to ending unconstitutional and simply unwise laws.

[pcosmar]

Jury nullification isn't technically legal. It isn't codified. It isn't supposed to happen. The only reason it even exists is because of double-jeopardy. We can't have a trial without a jury, and once the jury gives it's verdict, the case is closed.

As a lawyer, you aren't allowed to tell the Jury that this is an option, because while it technically is, it legally isn't.

When I see statements like this, I wonder why the person is here.
Why are you on this board? You are not a lover of Freedom, and not fighting for our lost rights.
Your position is false.
We the people have the final word at trials, and you want to silence their voice.

[hillertexas]

http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=displaytxt&id=207&refer=news

Nullification: The People's Veto Power

When you serve as a juror, you can veto bad laws ~ or good laws if those laws are misapplied in the case before you.

You have the authority to render a verdict based on conscience. In many states, the court employees, including the judges, will tell you that you do not have this authority. You do.

The juror's authority to veto bad laws is the final check and balance that We, the People, have to keep our government under our control.

The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from bad laws imposed by power-hungry and greedy government, or government representatives, whether that government is a king, a dictator, an elected president, another politician, or even a local mayor.

Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case.

The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain their human right to resist, and when serving as a juror, retain the unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and more than ever, would be morally compelled to exercise this final veto.

Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial ~ and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers - and the forensic investigators in most cases - are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.

The primary role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country's founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Jurors are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.

FIJA works to restore and protect the role of the juror, and the institution of Trial by Jury. Join with us to educate every potential juror in our nation about this final veto power held by We, the People: jury nullification.

[crazyfingers]

Yay for jury nullification! I'll be sure to consider it, if the circumstances ever permit.

[Cleaner44]

Jury nullification isn't technically legal. It isn't codified. It isn't supposed to happen. The only reason it even exists is because of double-jeopardy. We can't have a trial without a jury, and once the jury gives it's verdict, the case is closed.

As a lawyer, you aren't allowed to tell the Jury that this is an option, because while it technically is, it legally isn't.

I believe Reno is the defendant, not a lawyer.

Jury nullification is most certainly technically legal. It is supposed to happen.

The founding fathers of this nation understood that governments can get carried away and that if we the people are to maintain control, we must exercise our rights to keep control. Jury nullification is one of the rights we have to prevent our government from becoming a tyranny.