
                            JURY NULLIFICATION


     EACH PERSON  ON A  JURY HAS  THE POWER  TO VOTE  "NOT GUILTY"  IN  ANY
CRIMINAL CASE  EVEN IF  IT IS  OBVIOUS THE  DEFENDANT BROKE  THE LAW (PENAL
CODE). THIS  TREMENDOUS "POWER"  PERMITS YOU,  AS A  JUROR, TO "NULLIFY" OR
"NEUTRALIZE" A  LAW WHICH  IS IN  YOUR OPINION "BAD". YOU MAY EXERCISE THIS
POWER DESPITE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. NO
JUDGE WILL  EVER INSTRUCT YOU, HOWEVER, THAT YOU HAVE THIS POWER TO NULLIFY
A BAD  LAW BY  VOTING "NOT GUILTY"--LEGAL TRADITION ASSUMES THAT EACH JUROR
KNOWS OF THIS POWER BUT SHOULD NOT BE TOLD OF IT AS IT IS NOT A RIGHT.

                            THE "POWER" EXISTS

     "It may  not be  amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old
rule, that  on questions  of fact,  it is  the province  of  the  jury,  on
questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be
observed  that   by  the   same  law,   which  recognizes  this  reasonable
distribution of  jurisdiction, you  have nevertheless  a right to take upon
yourselves to  judge of  both, and to determine the law as well as the fact
in controversy.  On this,  and on every other occasion, however, we have no
doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court:
For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of
facts; it  is, on  the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best
judges of  law. But  still both  objects are lawfully, within your power of
decision." [CHARGE TO THE JURY BY THE 1ST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT, JOHN JAY, IN GEORGIA v. BRAILSFORD, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794). THIS JURY
INSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN A CIVIL (NOT CRIMINAL) CASE].
                                 *  *  *  *  *
     "'The verdict,  therefore, stands  conclusive and  unquestionable,  in
point both  of law  and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it may
be said  that the jury have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the
law and  the fact.'"  [CHIEF JUSTICE  SHAW (STATE) QUOTED IN SPARF v. U.S.,
156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)].
                                 *  *  *  *  *
     "The judge  cannot direct  [DEMAND] a  verdict it  is true  [FROM  THE
JURY], and  the jury  has the  power to  bring in a verdict in the teeth of
both law  and facts."  [U.S. SUPREME  COURT JUSTICE  HOLMES IN  HORNING  v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)].
                                 *  *  *  *  *
     "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.  This is  a power  that must exist as long as we
adhere to  the general  verdict in  criminal cases,  for the  courts cannot
search the  minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. 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." [U.S. APPELLATE
COURT IN  U.S. v.  MOYLAN, 417 F2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); CERT DENIED IN 397
US 910].
                                 *  *  *  *  *
     "The existence  of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury,
to acquit  in disregard  of the  instructions on the law given by the trial
judge, has  for many  years co-existed  with legal  practice and  precedent
upholding instructions  to the  jury that  they are  required to follow the



                                                JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 1 OF 2



instructions of  the court  on all  matters of  law. There  were  different
soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware
of the  number and  variety of  expressions at  that  time  from  respected
sources--John Adams;  Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges--that jurors had
a duty  to find  a verdict  according to  their own  conscience, though  in
opposition to  the direction  of the  court; that  their power  signified a
right; that  they were  judges both  of law and of fact in a criminal case,
and not  bound by  the opinion of the court." [U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN U.S.
v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1132 (1972)].

                          BUT DON'T TELL THE JURY

     "The way  the jury  operates may  be radically  altered  if  there  is
alteration in  the way  it is  told to  operate. The jury knows well enough
that its  prerogative is  not limited  to the  choices articulated  in  the
formal instructions  of the  court. [...] Law is a system, and it is also a
language, with  secondary meanings  that may  be unrecorded yet are part of
its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury
nullification doctrine  [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY BY
THE TRIAL  JUDGE] is  a recognition  that there are times when logic is not
the only  or even best guide to sound conduct of government. [...] The fact
that  there   is   widespread   existence   of   the   jury's   prerogative
[NULLIFICATION], and  approval of  its existence as a 'necessary counter to
case-hardened judges  and arbitrary  prosecutors,' does not establish as an
imperative that  the jury  must be  informed by  the judge  of that power."
[U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN UNITED STATES v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-
1136 (1972)].

                                CONCLUSION

     IN ANY  CRIMINAL CASE  EACH JUROR  CAN VOTE  "NOT GUILTY" HONESTLY AND
WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL BY ANYONE. THE JURY, IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, ACTS AS
THE 4TH AND SUPREME BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT WHOSE APPROVAL ONE OF ITS
OWN, ONE OF THE "PEOPLE", MAY NOT BE PUNISHED.

                                SUGGESTION

     IF SOMEONE  IS PROVED  BEYOND A  REASONABLE DOUBT  TO HAVE WILFULLY OR
INTENTIONALLY HURT  OR DESTROYED  SOMEONE OR THEIR PROPERTY--VOTE "GUILTY".
REMEMBER, HOWEVER, EACH ACCUSED PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

     BUT, IF  THE ACCUSED  HAS HURT NO ONE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR HAS DONE SO
ONLY BY ACCIDENT--VOTE "NOT GUILTY" IF YOU THINK THE LAW IS A BAD LAW.

     IN THIS  WAY "WE  THE PEOPLE"  WILL BE  TELLING OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WE
WILL SUPPORT  PROSECUTIONS IN  WHICH A  MEMBER OF  OUR COMMUNITY  HAS  BEEN
DELIBERATELY HURT OR WRONGED BUT THAT WE WILL NOT PERMIT PROSECUTIONS BASED
ON BAD  LAWS. PROSECUTORS WILL NOT BRING PROSECUTIONS THEY KNOW LOCAL JURYS
WILL NOT  SUPPORT. REMEMBER, IT TAKES ONLY ONE JUROR TO MAKE A "HUNG JURY".
BE AWARE  THAT PROSECUTORS, TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SCORING A WIN, WILL
LIKELY "DISQUALIFY"  YOU FOR  JURY DUTY IF THEY LEARN YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF
JURY NULLIFICATION.  PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO YOUR FRIENDS AND
NEIGHBORS. GET  ON THOSE JURYS. LOVE YOUR COUNTRY--BUT KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT
IN CHECK.









                                                JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 2 OF 2


