Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!jfraser
From: jfraser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jane Fraser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Amendments
Message-ID: <1991May23.174325.12197@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 23 May 91 17:43:25 GMT
References: <14357.2829E99B@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Tom Jennings writes:
>Quoting John Otto's message of 03 May: 
> >There's one place left.  In the jury box, you can acquit no matter what
>True, but the trend is to avoid it. I think there is one state in the US that 
>requires the court to inform the jury of this. Some actively discourage it.
>There is a group called "Fully Informed Jury Assoc." pushing this very fact, 

From the May 1991 issue of The Buckeye Libertarian:

``FIJA means Fully Informed Jury Amendment, Act, or Association.

``FIJA would require by state law that judges resume telling jurors
about their right to vote their consciences when deciding on a
verdict.  Jurors would have to be told they have the right to acquit
someone because they believe that the law itself is wrong, or is being
wrongly applied, even when the facts of the case would support a
conviction.

``For more information write to:
FIJA National
PO Box 59
Helmville, MT 59843-9989"

Jane Fraser