Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:10:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
280 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> In a day or two, I will have some specific ideas on working within the
> system rather than against it since I was called for jury duty today and
> seated on a jury. The trial is not finished yet so I can't comment on it
> yet, but I will have some comments since the particular subject gave me
> cause to examine my feelings deeply.
At the risk of being accused of jury tampering by making you aware of your
rights and duties as a juror(1), check this out:
http://www.fija.org/
It discusses "jury nullification". This is a unique power that American
jurors have... to find a defendent innocent based on a review of the law and
how just it is, rather than based on the facts of the case.
The judge will most likely instruct you that your duty is to judge the
facts, not the law. This is a lie. Don't believe it.
If (and i can't comment on the particulars of your case, because I don't,
and shouldn't, know them) you feel that a law is unjust, it is your duty as
a juror (and you take an oath to this effect) to find the law void. You're
upholding the constitution by doing so. Use it wisely, but use this power.
You may have a hard time convincing the other jurors, especially since you
will be (unjustly) restricted in what you can bring in with you and what you
can access while empaneled (2).
1 - while the very notion of giving general information on rights and
responsibilities as a form of tampering is laugable, it does happen, a lot.
Our system is rotted pretty badly.
2 - while seated on a jury, I was prevented from taking notes on my PC, then
prevented from taking notes on a paper notepad, being told that court
transcripts would be made quickly and readily available to me should I have
any questions, and my taking notes might tend to give my opinion more weight
with the other jurors (3).
Then when during deliberations I wanted to refer to a particular point in
testimony, the jury was told that it would introduce a several hour delay to
get the transcripts, couldn't I just remember approximately? Utter hogwash.
This was for a very serious crime. (assault with intent to kill) Fortunately
since I was the foreman, (a thing you want to maneuver yourself to be if you
can, most people don't want it) I was able to influence the outcome to take
that lack into account.
3 - which, I would argue, is just what someone who was willing to take notes
and who wanted to be an active part of the process *ought* to have, but I
wasn't going to make that point then.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
