Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1206 misc.legal:23565 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!gargoyle!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: Re: Sophistication of federal investigators Summary: Juries are empowered to judge both the law AND guilt Message-ID: <1991Jan16.053029.3800@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 16 Jan 91 05:30:29 GMT References: <1991Jan10.023821.15346@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Jan13.191251.28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <3277@igloo.scum.com> Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Lines: 172 In article <3277@igloo.scum.com> learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes: >In article <28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes one of his better rants: > >> Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" >> when they have committed no crime. > >Juries are charged with determining whether an individual has violated >laws, not whether a crime was committed. Unfortunately this distinction >is lost for some large portion of our population. This is just not true. A jury's job is to determine whether a crime that deserves punishment was committed in criminal and civil cases. The most obvious of these are civil cases where the award (set by jury) is $1.00....... even though the defendant is found "guilty". >Should juries begin to vote based on conscience involving their personal >views of "crime" instead of following current proceedure, the challenges >necessary to review the law itself would cease. I refer you to the following case and constitutional citations.... Constitution of Maryland, Art 15, Sec 5: In the trial of all criminal cases the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact... Constitution of Indiana, Art 1, Sec 19: In all criminal cases whatsoever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. U.S. vs Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969: If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... 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. vs Dougherty, D. C. Court of Appeals, 1972: [The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its perogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. A Jury can, by returning an innocent verdict, ignore the facts of the case and state that it believes the law is unjust, the circumstances justified the action, or any other message it wishes to impart. The Jury is the FINAL arbitrer of justice. As long as jurors know their right to acquit, regardless of evidence, the ultimate check and balance against an unjust law remains intact. This is why the right to a jury trial is so important. The facts of a case can be easily determined by a judge. Only a jury provides final peer review of the legal system's caprice -- by those who are the accused's peers. The attempt of the government to remove the right to a jury trial, which is increasing, is EXTREMELY dangerous -- that final "peer review" of the law is lost forever. It is that final review which is the most important safeguard an accused person has when on trial for an alleged offense. Of course, you'll never hear a judge cite these references to a jury. In fact, it's explicitly against courtroom procedure in several states. Nonetheless, the right to judge the law exists in the jury, as you can see from the above. It's just not in the state's interest (which wrote the courtroom procedure, you see) to let people know about it. It is to EVERYONE's benefit that jurors know all of this, and that they know their REAL responsibilities and rights. >I think we are left with a choice, Karl. Change this aspect of the system >to benefit charged individuals (perhaps) at the cost to all of society, or >let the first case run the hurdles and challenge the applied law, at an >expense to the individual but to the benefit of society at large by >imposition of better laws. Consider that in parts of Kentucky they have stopped trying to prosecute people for growing marijuana since they can't get a conviction. This despite the fact that people get caught with fields full of it -- the citizens of the area, who are on the jury, refuse to convict and send those people to jail. In fact, 60 minutes a few months back had a big sequence on it -- bemoaning the fact that the poor government couldn't jail these "lawbreakers". They conveniently forgot to mention that the people on the jury simply didn't think the accused did anything wrong -- certainly nothing worth imprisoning a person over! If jurors would exercise this right, we wouldn't need to repeal bad laws - they'd have no effect at all regardless of their passage. Our system of trial by jury has all the safeguards one needs -- as long as it's allowed to function as intended. Currently it's hog-tied -- we have laws which bypass the right to due process entirely, and a lack of information in the jury box during courtroom proceedings. >This is why foundations such as EFF are necessary. Generally an individual >cannot afford the expenses associated with such challenges. One of the features >of our socio-economic clime is that when a need arises, the demand is always >filled. Given the short history we have with the particular laws under >discussion, I think it amazing that the response has manifested so quickly and >so effectively. If the Jury knows their rights, and feels that a person is undeserving of punishment, then the expenses aren't necessary. Appearing in court for trial is sufficient. Let's FIX THE PROBLEM rather than toss money at it. A fully-informed jury ammendment, or failing that, full-page advertisements in every major newspaper, just might do the job. It's bound to be cheaper than fighting this one case at a time. Additionally, it has the benefit of working across societial boundaries, rather than just "for our benefit". Educating America on the Electronic Frontier and an ammendment requiring that juries be informed of their right to judge both law and fact would neatly destroy the threat of imprisonment. The repeal of RICO and related legislation would destroy the threat of theft by government agents (prior to conviction -- which is all anyone is or has a right to complain about). Those two items, all alone, would solve this problem for the Electronic Frontier and the rest of society. Add in legislation specifically authorizing just recompense for those tried and acquitted and you'd have the problem licked cold. No more Operation Sun Devils. No more Jolnets and RIPCOs. No more McMartin Preschool trials. A single case of malice like McMartin would end up bankrupting everyone in the government involved in the case -- which is as it should be. People who set out to destroy others deserve whatever they get, and just recompense should be available to those harmed by these folks. It's time we took our heads out of the sand as Americans. We currently imprison more of our population on a per capita basis than any other country in the world. We recently overtook South Africa and a few other countries to earn this distinction -- and 60% of those prisoners are non-violent "political" prisoners in jail for offenses like consensual drug use. It is long past the time when Americans should stand up and be counted against this kind of oppression. The electronic frontier is taking only a very small part of the punishment being levied unjustly against all Americans. Will we respond and put a stop to this insanity or waste resources on an insignificant part of the real issue? If you really want to make a difference, there's a way to do it. Get your name in the history books as the savior of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and solve the Electronic Frontier's (and lots of other people's) problem with the government all at once. The choice is ours. For the minute at least. Tomorrow we may lose the ability to choose or act on this matter. >Bill Vajk | An excess of law inescapably weakens the rule of law. > | - Laurence H. Tribe I'd love to get in line with such a movement. Alas, it appears the people of this country don't have the backbone to take on such a task. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"