A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty

Did you know that you qualify for another, much more
powerful vote than the one which you cast on election day?

This opportunity comes when you are selected for jury
duty, a position of honor for over 700 years.

The principle of a Common Law Jury or Jury of your Peers
was first established on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede,
England when King John signed the Magna Carta, or Great
Charter of our Liberties.

 It created the basis for our Constitutional, system of Justice.
Jury Power in the System of Checks and Balances

In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there
is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the
President, or even the Supreme Court.

Yes, the jury of  your peers protected under our Constitution has more power
than all these government officials. This is because they  have the final veto power
 over all "acts of the  legislature" that may come to be called "laws."

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution.

In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger
was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government.

 At that time, a law of the Colony of  New York forbid any publication
 without prior government  approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed
 by the early colonialists!

 Zenger, however, defied this  censorship and published articles
strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted
publishing the offending articles, but argued that the
truth of the facts stated justified their publication.

The  judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification
for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for
public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than
false claims of bad governance.

 And since the defendant  had admitted to the "fact" of publication,
only a question  of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty.

It took only ten minutes for the  jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
 and  find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide
the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as
well as the facts.

 In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check,
the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.


A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties

But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?

It certainly does!


In the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the
State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before
the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury.

Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law.
 But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "


...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to
determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".



So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense
twelve judges in attendance, not just one.

 And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts!"



Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion
and maintain the safety of all parties involved.



As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an
"unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the
trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139
(1972))



Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Maryland: "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 of passion,
 the jury has the power to acquit,
and the courts must abide by that decision."
 (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).



YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial,
and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are,
can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case.

Because a jury's guilty decision must be unanimous,
 it takes only one vote to effectively nullify a bad "act of the legislature."

Your one vote can "hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal,
at least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an unjust or unconstitutional law.



The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty," without  your consent!



If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair,
 or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights,
you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all
and that the violation of it is no crime;
for no man is bound to obey an unjust command.


 In other words, if the defendant has disobeyed
some man-made criminal statute, and the statute is unjust,
the defendant has in substance, committed no crime.


Jurors, having ruled then on the justice of the law
involved and finding it opposed in whole or in part to
their own natural concept of what is basically right, are
bound to hold for the acquittal of said defendant.



It is your responsibility to insist that your vote of not
guilty be respected by all other members of the jury.

 For you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the
majority, but as a qualified judge in your right to see
that justice is done.

 Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be applied to you by any or all members
 of the jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you
can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you
have voted your conscience and convictions, not those of someone else.



So you see, as a juror, you are one of a panel of twelve judges
with the responsibility of protecting all innocent Americans from unjust laws.



Jurors Must Know Their Rights

You must know your rights!

Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you
of your power to judge both law and fact.

 In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary.

 Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier):
"The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative,
 and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case- hardened j
udges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative
 that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power".


Look at that quote again.......... the court ruled jurors have the right to decide the law,
 but they don't have to be told about it.

 It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision
that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that although juries have the right
to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be aware of the right to do so.



Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on the surface?
It may be, but the logic behind such a decision is plain enough.

In our Constitutional Republic (note I didn't say democracy)
the people have granted certain limited powers to government,
 preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights.


So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law,
 then the citizens should know what their rights are.
They need not be told by the courts.

After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants.

Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are?
 Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are!



The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is absurd and contrary to historical fact and law.
 Are juries present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical acts of the government?

We The People wrote the supreme law of the land, the Constitution,
to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Who better can unbiasly decide the fairness of the laws,
or whether the laws conform to the Constitution?
Our Defense - JURY POWER



Sometime in the future, you may be called upon to sit in
judgement of a sincere individual being prosecuted
(persecuted?) for trying to exercise his or her Rights,
 or trying to defend the Constitution.

 If so, remember that in 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice
and signer of the Declaration of Independence said:
 "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts".

 And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together,
or we most assuredly will all hang separately."


You now understand how the average citizen can help keep
in check the power of government and bring to a halt the
enforcement of tyrannical laws.

Unfortunately, very few people know or understand this power which they as
Americans possess to nullify oppressive acts of the legislature.



America, the Constitution and your individual rights are under attack!

Will you defend them?


 READ THE CONSTITUTION, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!



Remember, if you don't know what your Rights are, you haven't got any!