PDA

View Full Version : Jury Nullification - Gun Laws


Phil79
03-29-2010, 8:28 PM
All, please help educate others they have the right (no matter what the judge tells the jury), to judge not only the facts of a case, but the law as well.

If I ever serve on a jury where a non-violent citizen is charged with breaking a gun law just because he or she values self-protection against rapists, robbers, and murderers, I will always vote NOT-guilty.

I just found this link and thought I'd share it:

http://armed-and-christian.blogspot.com/2009/02/jury-nullification-killing-gun-laws.html

Thanks,

Phil

Shotgun Man
03-29-2010, 8:31 PM
I totally agree.

So many people want to show up on saturdays and holidays to help load the jews onto the trains for the death camps. That's a metaphorical expression.

Most people don't have the fortitude to tell the gov to piss off.

Most jurors are absolute sheep.

GrizzlyGuy
03-29-2010, 9:20 PM
When I get a jury summons, it is like winning the lottery: one more opportunity to protect a citizen from the state.

More good info here, from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA): Jury Protection for Second Amendment (http://fija.org/download/34/)

dustoff31
03-29-2010, 9:36 PM
Try getting on a jury (at least a federal jury)if they know you are a gunny.

I've been called to federal jury duty in two different diistricts. Both times the judge asked if anyone owned guns, was a member of the NRA, etc. Got sent home both times.

Glock-matic
03-29-2010, 9:49 PM
I have yet to serve on a Jury. Once they ask me if I served and say yes, then they asked me what I did, I say Mp, they say thank you, excused. The last one was a man with a DUI whose Public defender was hanging on the defense that a Police officer needed a breathalyzer to tell if a defendant was drunk. Of course, it could have helped if the guy didn't fall on his face when he exited the vehicle. I think he needed another atty.

Dragunov
03-29-2010, 10:22 PM
You know what? I recieved a jury duty notice for next month. I also have legitimate reasons not to attend. You all have given me something to think about. Maybe I will serve this time.

Thanx Phil79, Griz.

nn3453
03-29-2010, 10:24 PM
Try getting on a jury (at least a federal jury)if they know you are a gunny.

I've been called to federal jury duty in two different diistricts. Both times the judge asked if anyone owned guns, was a member of the NRA, etc. Got sent home both times.

^^^

Peers are people who agree with the judge's/system's point of view. A gunny is rarely thought to be an unbiased juror.

Fyathyrio
03-29-2010, 10:38 PM
So, what compels us to answer these questions with anything other then a polite "Pardon me, but that's none of your business."?

Scratch705
03-29-2010, 10:39 PM
Try getting on a jury (at least a federal jury)if they know you are a gunny.

I've been called to federal jury duty in two different diistricts. Both times the judge asked if anyone owned guns, was a member of the NRA, etc. Got sent home both times.

i wouldn't have answered, unless i wanted to go home.

nn3453
03-29-2010, 10:52 PM
i wouldn't have answered, unless i wanted to go home.

Pretty sure you are required to answer the judge truthfully. In some cases, the judge may even ask you personal questions (you can request him/her to ask you in private). Not sure the penalties associated with it, but in the best case, if you are not truthful, you will be sent home later. Also pretty sure if you stay silent, you will be sent home.

Rob454
03-30-2010, 5:14 AM
I dont think its being a gunny or anything liek that ( military pro or con LEO etc) I think reason people don't get picked on jurys is if that person has any inkling of what is happening and can actually articulate and speak with a ounce of brains you don't get picked. Attorneys ( on both sides) want the gullible people who don't think for themselves. ive been picked for jusy duty every year since I was 21. Out of all those times I got picked once. it was a case where a woman got in a car accident and had phys therapy. I guess the doctor said she needs to exercise to loosen up nad strengthen her muscle/body etc so she decided to turn her garage in a gym. I guess 6 months later when she didnt turn into Miss universe she decided to sue the insurance company for damages to recoup her "loss" on the remodel of the garage into a work out room. I was the only one there that "saw" the light. I somehow ended up the jury foreman ( now i was leading people who were in their 40s 50s who were clueless about what was happening. It ended up that she got her car damages fixed and doctor visits. Those other people agreed with me that nobody told her to get exercise machines and remodel her house. She could of easily gotten a gym membership

Ill tell you one thing. Going in front of a jury in our court system is a 50 50 proposition. Pretty scary thought. One lady in our jury barely spoke english\. She wanted to be excused but the judge asked how long she lived here she said 6 years he said youre staying poor lady was clueless about what was happening.

vantec08
03-30-2010, 5:26 AM
I bailiffed court for years and found that most jurors, admittedly or not, have preconceived notions and prejudices and will seek validation in closing arguments (either side). Its the human condition, and to deny it is to deny one's humanity. Most judges have an horrendous schedule to meet and worry about appeal, to the point that a politicized situation or institution (NRA, Calguns) concerns them as "grounds for appeal." It is just another example of how political our ENTIRE system has become.

cdtx2001
03-30-2010, 5:42 AM
Most people don't know about jury nullification. Great reason to stay informed.

spencerhut
03-30-2010, 6:37 AM
I don't think its being a gunny or anything like that (military pro or con LEO etc) I think reason people don't get picked on jury's is if that person has any inkling of what is happening and can actually articulate and speak with a ounce of brains you don't get picked. Attorneys (on both sides) want the gullible people who don't think for themselves.

I've been called many times to jury duty. Each and every time I answered a question with a tiny bit of thought on my part I was dismissed. I've been trying to act dumber each time. :chris:

yellowfin
03-30-2010, 6:47 AM
It's really disgusting that the jury selection process favors the less intelligent and informed. What honest person would really want matters of law decided by the worst people for the job rather than the best? Of course we also have the worst people making the laws in the first place...

GrizzlyGuy
03-30-2010, 8:20 AM
I've been called many times to jury duty. Each and every time I answered a question with a tiny bit of thought on my part I was dismissed. I've been trying to act dumber each time. :chris:

Yup, it's kind of like interacting with LEOs: the less you say, the better it goes. This FIJA article provides good tips on how you can get through the selection process and onto a jury:

Surviving Voir Dire - How To Get On The Jury (http://fija.org/download/40/)

a1c
03-30-2010, 10:02 AM
All, please help educate others they have the right (no matter what the judge tells the jury), to judge not only the facts of a case, but the law as well.

If I ever serve on a jury where a non-violent citizen is charged with breaking a gun law just because he or she values self-protection against rapists, robbers, and murderers, I will always vote NOT-guilty.

I just found this link and thought I'd share it:

http://armed-and-christian.blogspot.com/2009/02/jury-nullification-killing-gun-laws.html

Thanks,

Phil

In the interest of justice, this is something you should disclose at the moment of the jury selection.

Most cases are rarely as simple as the one you are describing.

a1c
03-30-2010, 10:13 AM
I dont think its being a gunny or anything liek that ( military pro or con LEO etc) I think reason people don't get picked on jurys is if that person has any inkling of what is happening and can actually articulate and speak with a ounce of brains you don't get picked. Attorneys ( on both sides) want the gullible people who don't think for themselves. ive been picked for jusy duty every year since I was 21. Out of all those times I got picked once. it was a case where a woman got in a car accident and had phys therapy. I guess the doctor said she needs to exercise to loosen up nad strengthen her muscle/body etc so she decided to turn her garage in a gym. I guess 6 months later when she didnt turn into Miss universe she decided to sue the insurance company for damages to recoup her "loss" on the remodel of the garage into a work out room. I was the only one there that "saw" the light. I somehow ended up the jury foreman ( now i was leading people who were in their 40s 50s who were clueless about what was happening. It ended up that she got her car damages fixed and doctor visits. Those other people agreed with me that nobody told her to get exercise machines and remodel her house. She could of easily gotten a gym membership

Ill tell you one thing. Going in front of a jury in our court system is a 50 50 proposition. Pretty scary thought. One lady in our jury barely spoke english\. She wanted to be excused but the judge asked how long she lived here she said 6 years he said youre staying poor lady was clueless about what was happening.

As someone who hears tales from both prosecutors and defense attorneys all the time, I can tell you you're the one here with preconceived notions, and making incredibly silly generalizations.

Maybe some prosecutors or defense attorneys want gullible people (which makes no sense any way, since there are two parties at work in a trial, and your gullible pick could go the other way).

The attorneys I know don't like dummies. They don't like people who have preconceived notions. They like smart, sensible people with common sense and a respect for the law on their juries. Those are often difficult to find. Sure, the defense attorneys love people who dislike or don't trust cops. Sure, DAs like people who respect cops. Of course they'll try to pick jurors who can identify with their side. But mostly, they're looking for people who have some common sense. Unpredictable dummies are the worst for both camps.

Jury nullification is a cowardly and petty form of after the fact legislation. You are not going to change anything about gun laws by doing it. Legislators don't look at what's happening in lower courts to draft laws. They don't care. All you're doing is pissing off DAs and cops, who cannot do anything about those laws, including those they disagree personally with.

To change gun laws, you have to lobby your legislators. You're not going to achieve anything with jury nullification. You're wasting taxpayers money. All you're doing, in some cases, is possibly get someone to be released who shouldn't have. Because they may be good citizens who wanted to have a chance to protect themselves, but they might also be abusive spouses or thugs invoking self-protection when all they were doing is packing heat illegally to achieve some illegal activity.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 10:27 AM
I figure that if I really want to avoid jury duty I'll get a book bag with FIJA proudly emblazoned on it and pull out my book "Guilty" to read. It should get both sides to want me gone in a hurry.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 10:28 AM
As someone who hears tales from both prosecutors and defense attorneys all the time, I can tell you you're the one here with preconceived notions, and making incredibly silly generalizations.

Maybe some prosecutors or defense attorneys want gullible people (which makes no sense any way, since there are two parties at work in a trial, and your gullible pick could go the other way).

The attorneys I know don't like dummies. They don't like people who have preconceived notions. They like smart, sensible people with common sense and a respect for the law on their juries. Those are often difficult to find. Sure, the defense attorneys love people who dislike or don't trust cops. Sure, DAs like people who respect cops. Of course they'll try to pick jurors who can identify with their side. But mostly, they're looking for people who have some common sense. Unpredictable dummies are the worst for both camps.

Jury nullification is a cowardly and petty form of after the fact legislation. You are not going to change anything about gun laws by doing it. Legislators don't look at what's happening in lower courts to draft laws. They don't care. All you're doing is pissing off DAs and cops, who cannot do anything about those laws, including those they disagree personally with.

To change gun laws, you have to lobby your legislators. You're not going to achieve anything with jury nullification. You're wasting taxpayers money. All you're doing, in some cases, is possibly get someone to be released who shouldn't have. Because they may be good citizens who wanted to have a chance to protect themselves, but they might also be abusive spouses or thugs invoking self-protection when all they were doing is packing heat illegally to achieve some illegal activity.

This!!! Well said.

anthonyca
03-30-2010, 10:56 AM
It is our duty to protect people from unconstitutional laws. There was a time not long ago that any one of us could be convicted for wedding someone of a different race because some in govt thought that was wrong. That is just one example of bad law, there are many today.

It won't make a difference? It sure would make a difference to the person on trial for an unconstitutional law, and that is the reason we are on a jury, so that person has a fair trial, and is judged by a jury of his peers, for that crime he is on trial for, not what you think he may have done
in the past.

It is up to us to stop bad laws in the jury box. Read the founders reasons for jury nolification. Oh wait, you put it eloquently why we need jury nollification, no matter what some judge or modern day legislator says.

As someone who hears tales from both prosecutors and defense attorneys all the time, I can tell you you're the one here with preconceived notions, and making incredibly silly generalizations.

Maybe some prosecutors or defense attorneys want gullible people (which makes no sense any way, since there are two parties at work in a trial, and your gullible pick could go the other way).

The attorneys I know don't like dummies. They don't like people who have preconceived notions. They like smart, sensible people with common sense and a respect for the law on their juries. Those are often difficult to find. Sure, the defense attorneys love people who dislike or don't trust cops. Sure, DAs like people who respect cops. Of course they'll try to pick jurors who can identify with their side. But mostly, they're looking for people who have some common sense. Unpredictable dummies are the worst for both camps.

Jury nullification is a cowardly and petty form of after the fact legislation. You are not going to change anything about gun laws by doing it. Legislators don't look at what's happening in lower courts to draft laws. They don't care. All you're doing is pissing off DAs and cops, who cannot do anything about those laws, including those they disagree personally with.

To change gun laws, you have to lobby your legislators. You're not going to achieve anything with jury nullification. You're wasting taxpayers money. All you're doing, in some cases, is possibly get someone to be released who shouldn't have. Because they may be good citizens who wanted to have a chance to protect themselves, but they might also be abusive spouses or thugs invoking self-protection when all they were doing is packing heat illegally to achieve some illegal activity.

a1c
03-30-2010, 11:14 AM
It is our duty to protect people from unconstitutional laws.

No. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional when a higher court says it is. There are many people who each have their interpretation of the US Constitution. Even the nine Justices in the SCOTUS each have a different interpretation of what the Second amendment is.

You can't ***** about so-called "activist judges" and behave the exact same way. You can't pick and choose what you deem constitutional or not and exercize it in the juror box. Laws are made uphill, and if you think a law is unfair, lobby your representatives. I hope anybody who considers jury nullification also is consistent enough with their convictions to regularly phone, email, fax or meet their elected officials.

There was a time not long ago that any one of us could be convicted for wedding someone of a different race because some in govt thought that was wrong. That is just one example of bad law, there are many today.

Yes, but everybody has their own opinions on what a good or a bad law is. Some people still believe this country should be ruled by white people, and adhere to the original text.

There is a rule of law. Being a jury activist might be your choice, but in the end, all you're going to do is waste taxpayers' money, and have ZERO impact on the existing legislation. ZERO.

Jury nullification is not a form of civil disobedience.

It won't make a difference? It sure would make a difference to the person on trial for an unconstitutional law, and that is the reason we are on a jury, so that person has a fair trial, and is judged by a jury of his peers, for that crime he is on trial for, not what you think he may have done
in the past.

It is up to us to stop bad laws in the jury box. Read the founders reasons for jury nolification. Oh wait, you put it eloquently why we need jury nollification, no matter what some judge or modern day legislator says.

You want to be judge and jury. You only get to be jury. That's how the system works.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 11:18 AM
It is our duty to protect people from unconstitutional laws. There was a time not long ago that any one of us could be convicted for wedding someone of a different race because some in govt thought that was wrong. That is just one example of bad law, there are many today.

It won't make a difference? It sure would make a difference to the person on trial for an unconstitutional law, and that is the reason we are on a jury, so that person has a fair trial, and is judged by a jury of his peers, for that crime he is on trial for, not what you think he may have done
in the past.

It is up to us to stop bad laws in the jury box. Read the founders reasons for jury nolification. Oh wait, you put it eloquently why we need jury nollification, no matter what some judge or modern day legislator says.

I probably shouldn't try to speak for a1c, but I thought he was speaking ill of jury nullification mostly when used instead of trying get the laws changed.

I also think that sometimes jury nullification may be problematic in individual cases as well since (as I think a1c may have been trying to suggest), there are likely times that they are prosecuting for something they think is a bad law just because they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction on the charges they would've liked to have brought. So you've got someone who hangs out with druggies but you can't prove he uses, wife has called repeatedly to be rescued from a beating but she won't testify - but he is in illegal possession of a firearm so they bust him on that since they can prove that case. So maybe the cause of justice would be best served by convicting the guy on a charge I don't like because it protects his wife.

Nonetheless, I believe in jury nullification. If a law is just plain wrong and it is clear that it is the real issue at hand - then there should be no conviction based on that law. Even if there clearly are other issues I'm not so sure that jury nullification should be avoided since I've got some problems convicting someone on a bogus law just because the case can't be made on other charges.

FWIW

Edit: See, I shouldn't have tried to speak for him. He made a cogent argument along very different lines. I disagree on several points, but it is a well-constructed argument.

demnogis
03-30-2010, 11:26 AM
I believe A1C's tune would change if our legislature brought forth, and passed, a law that would ban handgun ownership and it was his butt on the chopping block for "illegal possession".

As a Juror you are a judge. You judge not only the defense, but the law itself. Placing all of your faith and regard of the law is almost the same as being a police officer sworn to uphold the constitution, but enforcing unconstitutional laws -- even if they have not been ruled so by a judge.

bigcalidave
03-30-2010, 12:24 PM
a1c, if the system is corrupt, and the police or DA don't follow the same moral compass as the people forced to live under their rule, jury nullification is our last line of defense against unjust law. We aren't talking about a clear murder case and deciding that murder isn't crime, we are specifically talking about gun law. For example, if I served on a jury for the trial of Theseus, I would NEVER have convicted him. You fail to understand, and it has been obvious from previous posts you made, that some people really see how the system has failed us. Complain to the legislature all you want, feel good gun laws are only going away in court. Until they do, it is our Civic Duty to keep the innocent out of prison on unconstitutional laws. Cowardly and Petty? Just because people have a stronger belief in our constitution than you doesn't give you the right to throw insults at them. I wouldn't care about pissing off a DA who chose to prosecute a victimless possession crime, violations of 12020 come to mind. They have the power to simply dismiss charges and decide there wasn't a crime. If they want to prosecute, it is THEIR FAULT that any taxpayer money is wasted.

POLICESTATE
03-30-2010, 12:32 PM
If I serve on a jury I will vote based on the circumstances of the case according to the spirit of the law and whether that law infringes on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Which means for a murder trial, hey if the guy did it, I'm voting guilty.

If for some stupid, vote-pandering law that creates a victimless crime where no law should be in the first place, and the so-called crime it creates does not violate anyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then I'm voting not guilty.

What if they make a law that says you can no longer look up in the sky on sunny days because it might hurt your eyes? Not guilty.

What if they make a law saying that 2+2=5 and to say otherwise is punishable by a fine and/or jail time? Not guilty.

What if they make a law saying that disagreeing in a public forum about things your government says is a crime of any sort? Not guilty.

What if they prosecute someone for death threats because they say, in front of witnesses, or on youtube, that they wish someone would die? NOT GUILTY.

Our justice system would work much better if it wasn't crammed with stupid cases, stupid lawsuits and too many laws. How can our society be considered free when we have literally thousands of laws on our books, so many not one person even knows them all? At least as the member of a jury I can see SOME justice done. However if someone is guilty of a real crime, well they should get their just desserts.

Telperion
03-30-2010, 12:55 PM
No. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional when a higher court says it is.
There is no court or decision that has the right to override your mind. Nor are you excused from thinking because a judge instructs you not to. It cannot fall to nine to protect the rights of 300 million. It is your responsibility too.


There is a rule of law. Being a jury activist might be your choice, but in the end, all you're going to do is waste taxpayers' money, and have ZERO impact on the existing legislation. ZERO.

Jury nullification is not a form of civil disobedience.

You want to be judge and jury. You only get to be jury. That's how the system works.

If "rule of law" means what you are saying it does, then we should dispense with juries altogether. The jury is there so that the people who must live under the law have a say in how it is decided.

a1c
03-30-2010, 1:18 PM
There is no court or decision that has the right to override your mind. Nor are you excused from thinking because a judge instructs you not to. It cannot fall to nine to protect the rights of 300 million. It is your responsibility too.

Sure, but remember that your idea of what's constitutional or what is not is very much personal. Remember also that other people may be able to use it their way to fulfill their own agenda.

If "rule of law" means what you are saying it does, then we should dispense with juries altogether. The jury is there so that the people who must live under the law have a say in how it is decided.

The jury as a whole, yes. Not a single juror who by simple refusal out of a principle will waste everybody else's time. What you are doing with jury nullification is conceal your intention in order to trick the whole system. That's deceiving and it could have unintended consequences.

Instead of ruling on a defendant, you are ruling on a law. That's not the venue for that.

This whole thread anyway is based on a premise that's very rarely encountered: that someone violated a stupid gun law, and that it was the only way for them to save or protect their life. There are rarely ever any cases like that. Most cases are not black and white, they're all sorts of grey.

Flopper
03-30-2010, 1:19 PM
No. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional when a higher court says it is.

Wow, funny you should say that:

"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... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"-First Chief Justice of the US John Jay.

Since there is no SC precedent specifically regarding the validity of nullification, is this good enough for you?

a1c
03-30-2010, 1:23 PM
a1c, if the system is corrupt, and the police or DA don't follow the same moral compass as the people forced to live under their rule, jury nullification is our last line of defense against unjust law. We aren't talking about a clear murder case and deciding that murder isn't crime, we are specifically talking about gun law. For example, if I served on a jury for the trial of Theseus, I would NEVER have convicted him. You fail to understand, and it has been obvious from previous posts you made, that some people really see how the system has failed us. Complain to the legislature all you want, feel good gun laws are only going away in court. Until they do, it is our Civic Duty to keep the innocent out of prison on unconstitutional laws. Cowardly and Petty? Just because people have a stronger belief in our constitution than you doesn't give you the right to throw insults at them. I wouldn't care about pissing off a DA who chose to prosecute a victimless possession crime, violations of 12020 come to mind. They have the power to simply dismiss charges and decide there wasn't a crime. If they want to prosecute, it is THEIR FAULT that any taxpayer money is wasted.

I see where you are coming from, and thankfully there are few cases like Theseus'.

However I just wish that all people who are willing to take the route of jury nullification in such cases would also donate to CGF and other organizations that preserve the constitutional RKBA, because the fight needs to be fought uphill. I'm sure that's the case already for most of them, but I think it's a better and more efficient route.

bigcalidave
03-30-2010, 1:32 PM
And A1C flipflops AGAIN ... as usual.

ACTUALLY he didn't say to save or protect life in the OP, he said stupid gun law vs self protection. Sounds like UOC or ccw without a permit...

There is nothing deceiving or wrong about nullification. Not only should you fight against unjust laws, but you should explain it to the best of your ability to the rest of the jury! So many people are completely oblivious to this option that they think they have an obligation to only believe the judges view on a law.

You just switched from jury nullification is cowardly and petty to
I just wish that all people who are willing to take the route of jury nullification in such cases would also donate to CGF and other organizations that preserve the constitutional RKBA, because the fight needs to be fought uphill

Did you actually come around or are you just confused on your position?

CandRTom
03-30-2010, 1:35 PM
Also, A1C's statement about wasting taxpayer money through jury nullification? The DAs and cops have discretion in what they choose to pursue, they have a hand in wasting money. Or have you already forgotten about the people the Calguns Foundation has already had to assist because some ambitious prosecutor thought them easy pickings? I'm not saying that jury nullification is the end-all for bad laws, but a stand against questionable laws needs to start somewhere, and not everyone can afford to battle things out through appeals up through the federal courts. Lobbying and campaigning against unjust laws costs the people money, and when the legislators are actually getting paid to write these things, they have no incentive to stop if the people lobbying against them aren't part of their constituency.

Flopper
03-30-2010, 1:43 PM
And A1C flipflops AGAIN ... as usual.

Did you actually come around or are you just confused on your position?

I really don't care either way.

I'm just happy to see that most Calgunners realize the importance of the right to nullification.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 1:55 PM
And A1C flipflops AGAIN ... as usual.

ACTUALLY he didn't say to save or protect life in the OP, he said stupid gun law vs self protection. Sounds like UOC or ccw without a permit...

There is nothing deceiving or wrong about nullification. Not only should you fight against unjust laws, but you should explain it to the best of your ability to the rest of the jury! So many people are completely oblivious to this option that they think they have an obligation to only believe the judges view on a law.

You just switched from jury nullification is cowardly and petty to


Did you actually come around or are you just confused on your position?

My take is a little different. He participated in an honest discussion and, at least to a certain extent, he changed his mind after considering the arguments.

I'd give him kudos for that.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 2:00 PM
A note on the courts interpreting the Constitution:

Years ago I took an oath to defend the Constitution. My oath said nothing about defending the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution. To me this strongly implies that I am required to have my own opinion as to what the Constitution says/means.

More people will listen to the courts' opinions, but I have my own opinion. However, I make no apologies for having my opinion informed (but not formed) by that of the courts.

N6ATF
03-30-2010, 2:06 PM
Kind of need a perfect storm to jury nullify:
1) The defendant committed a victimless crime of self-defense (or whatever)
2) The defendant doesn't plea
3) The defendant doesn't request a trial by judge alone
4) You don't get booted in voir dire

bigcalidave
03-30-2010, 2:23 PM
My take is a little different. He participated in an honest discussion and, at least to a certain extent, he changed his mind after considering the arguments.

I'd give him kudos for that.

I don't believe that's what happened. I wasn't trying to be insulting but the initial comment of cowardly and petty sure sounded that way.

I don't care what someone does outside of their jury duty, I just hope that if they have the opportunity to prevent an injustice they will take it. Doesn't matter if it's a lower court and a case that will have no bearing on any law or lawmaker ANYWHERE.. It DOES have a bearing on the life of the person incarcerated for a BS law!!!! That's what pisses me off.

Phil79
03-30-2010, 3:25 PM
Well a1c, you must be the dark side dwelling here to provide "balance" in the gun cosmos. lol

You're saying in other words, in the interest of justice, that jury nullification should never occur, since as you know, disclosing such information up front automatically means one will not get the chance to do it. Please try not to make us laugh any harder by denying YOUR preconceived notions of justice.

Take a little education here and learn that the founding fathers set up such a system to specifically allow jury nullification to occur, in order to provide checks against laws that chip away (sometimes in large chunks) the freedom Americans fought awful hard for.

At least a few former Chief Justices and other Justices that have served on the Supreme Court have affirmed this right of the people, to not only judge the facts of the case, but the law itself.

Yours truly is the dark side, for why hide the knowledge of this right from the people? Did you know that up until the early 1900's, judges would bring this knowledge to LIGHT to the jury, but now they hide it. Seems like THEY may have an agenda? Like perhaps maintaining the status quo of laws that infringe upon our freedoms instead of protecting them?

It is specifically FOR the sake of justice that I will maintain my option of jury nullification when questioned to be a potential juror. And I will be completely honest when I state that I will judge the matter only on the facts of the case, for the law itself is central to the facts at hand.

Your counsel for us to not use jury nullification, sounds like you're trying to convince us to not do something that you fear will be effective. Proof enough of this is your animosity towards it. If it was ineffective, there would have been no need for you to waste your finger-patter on the keyboard.

Another bit of education: Jury nullification helped get rid of the unjust prohibition laws, fugitive slave laws, and others. But you may know that, as curiosity probably had you reading the article at the link I posted.

Phil


In the interest of justice, this is something you should disclose at the moment of the jury selection.

Most cases are rarely as simple as the one you are describing.

BobB35
03-30-2010, 3:45 PM
Jury nullification is not allowed in CA. If a judge thinks you know anything about jury nullification you will be removed from the case.

CA supreme court ruled on this in 2001

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Justices Say Jurors May Not Vote Conscience
Ruling: The law must be followed even if panelists believe the result will be unjust, state's highest court finds.


By MAURA DOLAN, Times Legal Affairs Writer


SAN FRANCISCO--Jurors must follow the law--not their consciences--even when they strongly believe the law will produce an unjust result, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court rejected a centuries-old doctrine called "jury nullification," which gives jurors the power to follow their convictions rather than the law.
"A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for a unanimous court.
Nullification, a doctrine rooted in old English law, has been debated by judges, lawyers and legal scholars for decades. In recent years, advocates of nullification have seen it as a weapon against unpopular tax laws and increasingly harsh criminal sentences.
Monday's ruling was the first in which the state high court directly confronted the principle. The court held that a judge properly excused a juror who said he could not convict an 18-year-old man of unlawful sex with a minor--the defendant's 16-year-old former girlfriend.
"Encouraging a jury to nullify a law it finds unjust or to act as the 'conscience of the community' by disregarding the court's instructions may sound lofty," George wrote, "but such unchecked and unreviewable power can lead to verdicts based upon bigotry and racism."
The court acknowledged that in criminal cases, juries may continue to nullify the law unless the judge discovers it before a verdict. Although a judge can throw out a guilty verdict if it was not supported by the evidence, a jurist has no authority to override a verdict that favors a defendant.
Monday's decision, however, is likely to deter nullification because a new jury instruction requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Karl S. Mayer.
Mayer, who represented the prosecution in the case before the high court, called the court's decision a "clear rejection" of jury nullification.
"If it comes to the attention of the court, this should stop it," Mayer said.
University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen said the ruling is particularly timely because the new jury instruction will increasingly force judges to decide whether to remove jurors for nullification.
Even with the instruction, nullification probably will persist, he said. In most cases, "jury nullification is not explicit," Uelmen said. "It is almost subliminal. The jury applies a higher standard of reasonable doubt because they don't like the law."
Nullification's history in the United State is long and broad: Northern jurors used it to protect runaway slaves prior to the Civil War and, conversely, some juries in the South refused to convict whites who killed or assaulted blacks or civil rights activists.
More recently, juries have spared draft resisters and marijuana users. Juries also have refused to find some defendants guilty because they believe sentences under the three-strikes law are too harsh.
American courts that have considered nullification have generally ruled against it. On the other hand, the constitutions of three states--Georgia, Indiana and Maryland--say that jurors should judge questions of law as well as fact.
Judicial decisions in those states have "essentially nullified" the constitutional provisions, George noted in Monday's ruling.
Until this week, the California Supreme Court had not clearly confronted jury nullification because the practice is generally hidden from a court's scrutiny, lawyers said. Most jurors do not admit that they are basing their decisions on disagreement with the law.
Lawyers said the court also might have been more inclined to take on the subject now because of debate about jury nullification in the wake of such highly publicized cases as the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Once considered an arcane subject, jury nullification is frequently debated in scholarly circles and in the news media.
In ruling against nullification, the court considered the Santa Clara County case of Arasheik Wesley Williams, who was charged with raping his former girlfriend. To find that a rape had occurred, the jury also had to find that the defendant illegally had sex with a minor.
Williams had admitted he had sex with the teenager but said it was consensual. On the first day of juror deliberations, the foreperson informed the judge that one of the jurors refused to follow instructions on statutory rape because he believed the law was wrong.
Superior Court Judge Paul R. Teilh questioned the juror. "It's been reported to me that you refuse to follow my instructions on the law in regard to rape and unlawful sexual intercourse, that you believe the law to be wrong, and therefore, you will not hear any discussion on that subject. Is that correct?" the judge asked.
"Pretty much, yes," the juror replied.
A few minutes later, the juror told the judge: "I've been told [statutory rape] is a misdemeanor. I still don't see--if it were a $10 fine, I just don't see convicting a man and staining his record for the rest of his life. I think that is wrong. I'm sorry, judge."
The judge, over the defendant's objections, replaced the man with an alternate juror. Williams was convicted of assault, false imprisonment and torture and sentenced to six years in prison.
He appealed on the grounds that the juror should have been allowed to remain on the panel because jury nullification is acceptable. The attorney for the defendant in the case could not be reached for comment.
While rejecting Williams' appeal, the court noted that juries still have the capability to nullify the law in criminal cases because of double jeopardy protection for defendants. A defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict.
But these jury powers do not "diminish the trial court's authority to discharge a juror, who, the court learns, is unable or unwilling to follow the court's instructions," George wrote.
In a footnote, he said the court was expressing no view on whether a judge can instruct a jury specifically that it has no power, as opposed to right, to render a verdict contrary to the law.
By leaving the question unanswered, defense attorneys may try to inform juries that even though they are not supposed to nullify, they do have that power, McGeorge School of Law professor J. Clark Kelso said.
"Suppose defense counsel says, 'Jury, you have no right to make up the law, but you do have the power to do it.' Would that be improper? I don't know," Kelso said.
Even with that possible opening, the ruling in People vs. Williams, S066106, will be helpful to prosecutors, Kelso said. "It gives the prosecutor another tool in closing arguments," the law professor said.
In a separate decision Monday, the court overturned a Los Angeles robbery conviction on the grounds that the judge had improperly dismissed a holdout juror. Superior Court Judge Richard R. Romero replaced the juror with an alternate after fellow jurors complained that he was refusing to deliberate.
The state high court ruled that the evidence did not support the finding. "The juror simply viewed the evidence differently from the way the rest of the jury viewed it," George wrote.
The dismissed juror may have "employed faulty logic and reached an 'incorrect result,' but it cannot properly be said that he refused to deliberate," George said in People vs. Cleveland, S078537.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

Phil79
03-30-2010, 3:48 PM
In fact, I did not constrain my argument to simple cases. I merely stated "non-violent". There are an awful lot of non-violent people charged with gun law violations. Owning "too many guns", or "too powerful guns", "unlicensed, but legally purchased guns", "carrying anywhere forbidden with or without a ccw, but with no intent to harm anyone". I'm not saying there are other cases than these where I'd vote not guilty, but lets just say even in "gray" cases, the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes in favor of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

How about the case of a female gun-owner who marries a man that has committed a non-violent felony (or will commit one). He cannot legally have access to firearms. Well duh, they live in the same house. Do we take away her right to her guns and leave her helpless when her husband is at work, or do we council her to divorce or live separately? Non-violent felons who did their time maintain their God-given right to self-defense. Now, what if the guy committed a violent felony and did his time...do we still punish the wife and take away her guns, or make her keep the ammo and guns locked separately so that it takes her minutes to unlock everything when seconds count?

Most cases are rarely as simple as the one you are describing.

a1c
03-30-2010, 3:48 PM
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.

I don't think I said I opposed jury nullification in all cases. I oppose using jury nullification to protest what some judge as unfair gun laws, no matter what the circumstances are.

If someone gets busted for driving around a school zone with a loaded, unregistered AR on the passenger seat with an inserted 30-round mag, I don't believe jury nullification is a good idea to prevent the defendant's conviction - nor efficient, nor a good way to fight for our rights.

I think the CA laws that would have been violated here are ridiculous - like most Calgunners, I suspect. We all know the 10 round limit is stupid, that the school zone thing is dubious and difficult to put in practice, that the carrying laws are a joke, etc.

But the law is the law here. Is it a stupid law? Sure. Are they unconstitutional? We'll know soon for some of them. Should they be observed nonetheless? Yes.

Not because they make sense. But because while cumbersome, stupid, annoying, inefficient, violating them and failing to convict those who break them just hurt us gun owners in our fight to restore the spirit of the law.

Jury nullification would not attract positive attention to our fight, unlike the civil rights examples given earlier. They would only make the nullifying juror look like a radical wingnut, outrage the antis, and so on. In this state, it simply is useless.

command_liner
03-30-2010, 3:53 PM
Take some time to read the Constitution. The words are trial by jury.
The pens, pencils, tables, chairs, courtroom, prosecutor, defense, bailiff,
judge and all the other traipsing exists ONLY to assist the jury in its execution
of the trial. The jury is in charge and carries _all_ of the burden.

The courts, and justice system in general, are infected with rent-seeking
buffoons trying to protect their phony-baloney jobs. The rent-seeking
buffoons really hate it when a jury tells them they have no clothes.

No human can read the actual law, or even a summary of the law. It
would take more than a lifetime. The law is now fundamentally unknowable,
so no judge or cop or lawyer can claim to know what the law is.

The reason jury nullification was an accepted policy at the time of
creation of the Constitution was for this _exact_ reason. Many of the
Founding Fathers explained this in detail. The quotes are not hard to
find.

POLICESTATE
03-30-2010, 3:54 PM
So what, if any, are the consequences for a juror who elects to vote with his conscience?

demnogis
03-30-2010, 4:01 PM
So what, if any, are the consequences for a juror who elects to vote with his conscience? Not sure... But it would be quite ironic for prosecution of such to go to a trial by jury, and that jury vote to nullify...

If there is such a law, I would like to see it repealed -- or challenged. It would be interesting to see the briefs supplied by the state against a jury's right to nullify as well as the briefs by the state(s), other judges and past opinions by other judges in support of nullification.

It truly is one of the citizens' roadblocks for the court trying to convict for unjust laws.

Phil79
03-30-2010, 4:04 PM
Now I know for sure that the California Supreme Court is nuts. Stating that jurors are not allowed to vote their conscience? And just what kind of voodoo or sci-fi brain-rays are they planning to implement to make sure their mind control of the people is enforced?

Any intelligent juror who knows how to use jury nullification will still know how to nullify without getting "caught".

Jury nullification is not allowed in CA. If a judge thinks you know anything about jury nullification you will be removed from the case.

a1c
03-30-2010, 4:06 PM
So what, if any, are the consequences for a juror who elects to vote with his conscience?

He can be removed and replaced by the judge. This is why I keep saying that this is a waste of time and taxpayers' money, and the wrong way to go around it.

OlderThanDirt
03-30-2010, 4:06 PM
Nonetheless, I believe in jury nullification. If a law is just plain wrong and it is clear that it is the real issue at hand - then there should be no conviction based on that law. Even if there clearly are other issues I'm not so sure that jury nullification should be avoided since I've got some problems convicting someone on a bogus law just because the case can't be made on other charges.

Us old guys think alike. There are so many BS laws on the books that I have no doubt that we are all technically criminals. It also seems that there are a lot more people being charged with making "terrorist threats" or committing the crime of "conspiracy to" do something. And don't even get me started on the subject of victimless crimes...

demnogis
03-30-2010, 4:10 PM
Us old guys think alike. There are so many BS laws on the books that I have no doubt that we are all technically criminals. It also seems that there are a lot more people being charged with making "terrorist threats" or committing the crime of "conspiracy to" do something. And don't even get me started on the subject of victimless crimes...
It appears that is the motive entirely. Make it illegal for the jury to vote in any way other than the technicality of the law, then make ridiculous laws to follow. Henceforth: we are all technically criminals.

A1C, you still want to put all your faith into the system? If so, I'd suggest changing your last name to Dredd and applying at the DOJ...

POLICESTATE
03-30-2010, 4:11 PM
Yeah that's the same feeling I get, they "herd" the jury into voting on such a strict set of rules that the verdict is almost a forgone conclusion.

a1c
03-30-2010, 4:24 PM
It appears that is the motive entirely. Make it illegal for the jury to vote in any way other than the technicality of the law, then make ridiculous laws to follow. Henceforth: we are all technically criminals.

A1C, you still want to put all your faith into the system? If so, I'd suggest changing your last name to Dredd and applying at the DOJ...

I already made the disclaimer that I hang around a lot of attorneys. In fact, my wife is a prosecutor. :p So you probably see where I come from. I've heard my share of trials nullified because some juror just didn't like nor trusts cops. Big waste of time, and an offender back on the street.

I want to make one thing clear: I don't think the current system is perfect. But I think I understand why the CA Supreme Court made that ruling back in '01.

For instance, I personally don't believe in capital punishment. I think it's cruel and unusual, I think there is too much of a risk of executing an innocent man and having no way to fix it (doesn't matter if it happens only once, that would be one too many), I think it has zero deterrence, and I think it clogs the penal system and costs us taxpayers way too much money. That's my personal opinion.

Now should I get on a jury where there is a chance that the defendant be convicted and sentenced to death? Obviously not.

Why? Because the law would require me to vote "guilty" if I think the guy is guilty (let's assume he is), but my conscience would tell me not to vote "guilty", because it means I would send the guy to the gas chamber. Obviously I wouldn't want a guilty man to walk away from murder. But it would be difficult to cast that vote. This is why I would disclose my conviction on the matter during the selection and would most likely get dismissed.

This is why the prosecutor or the judge will ask in those cases each prospective juror if they agree with the death penalty. If one answers that they oppose the death penalty, they'll get kicked out, because the DA or the judge don't want people who are going to struggle with their conscience and vote "not guilty" even though they know the guy is obviously guilty. Believe it or not, but some people - with deep religious or ethical beliefs - would do so.

Just like some hardcore libertarians who believe all drugs should be legalized might vote "not guilty" in drug trafficking cases, even when the defendant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The key is in being honest: if you lie to the judge or the DA during the selection process about your motives or your convictions, you are not only breaking the law, you are being unethical (and in CA, you're wasting your time). If you conceal your intention from the very beginning, and have decided that you will nullify the vote without even hearing the case, you are just as unethical.

command_liner
03-30-2010, 4:26 PM
Should we follow the law?
What about two laws that apply to a single event, and each of the laws
specifically contradicts the other? Which law should be followed, and
which one ignored?

I am just finishing up with one of these situations. We chose to ignore the
law fewest officials complained about.

What should a jury do?

a1c
03-30-2010, 4:30 PM
Should we follow the law?
What about two laws that apply to a single event, and each of the laws
specifically contradicts the other? Which law should be followed, and
which one ignored?

Do you have examples?

Rob454
03-30-2010, 4:33 PM
As someone who hears tales from both prosecutors and defense attorneys all the time, I can tell you you're the one here with preconceived notions, and making incredibly silly generalizations.

.

Then why when i go to jury duty and go through the whole process and the people that get picked are the ones who speak little english, the guy who looks like he is half asleep and staring at the ceiling and maybe the one guy or lady that can actually say a sentence without a like or Uh ah every other word?
I understand both the DA and Def att want people that will basically side with them. I CAN walk in a court room and be completely unbiased. I will hear both sides and make a fair judgment when I am given all the facts. Dont get me wrong the last thing I want to do is spend a week in court hearing a bunch of boring where upon and what here to and there for. I got WAY better things to do with my time. BUT I can go and be completely impartial and make a fair decision. I dont care what the guy did in the past. He is on trial for what he did now etc.

I'm not generalizing anything and have no preconceived notions. THESE were MY observations for 15+ years of going to jusry duty every year. knowing absolutely NOTHING about me i think you are the one with the preconceived notions

Phil79
03-30-2010, 4:34 PM
I do you believe you stated as much when you said that for the sake of justice, a determination to nullify must be told the court up front. Do you know of any chance for any nullification to occur under those circumstances? Logic then demands that you are opposed to all nullification, unless of course you now feel that sometimes for the sake of justice a determination to nullify can be concealed? You can't have it both ways.

Your using the hypothetical AR situation is rather humorous. A registered gun fires just as well as an unregistered one. A Glock model 22 with 16 rounds and a spare mag is as many rounds as the AR, and .40 cal can mess up someone's day as much as a .223 (unless the kids are wearing level III body armor). If we were a truly free people, I could walk by the school yard with a full-auto and anyone with any sense would feel safe, because such a thing would be so common it would be boring. It is in Israel, and the people there are glad that Israeli citizens can carry major heat to take out terrorists.

So, stupid laws should "be observed nonetheless"? Would you have been saying that in the 1800's when people refused to turn in fleeing slaves? Of course not, you'll tell me (at least I hope so) - you'll say this was a moral issue. Well, our 2nd amendment right IS a moral issue. And by the way, the Constitution didn't give us that right, rather it was written to guarantee that government wouldn't take it away from us. Now, lawmakers simply ignore the Constitution, as there are now literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws that infringe that right.

Failing to convict those who break the unjust laws will send a powerful message to prosecutors and judges that we will use all peaceful means to protect our freedoms.

"Jury nullification would not attract positive attention to our fight" - You really think there's anything we can do that the anti-gun nuts will consider to be positive? Those not in their camp automatically show they have enough common sense to know a just cause when they see it.

"outrage the antis" - Really? As if they are not already enraged with us? Let's enrage them a little more and help them blow a gasket. Make them take a little time out going to the doctor for high blood-pressure instead of harassing us.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.

I don't think I said I opposed jury nullification in all cases. I oppose using jury nullification to protest what some judge as unfair gun laws, no matter what the circumstances are.

If someone gets busted for driving around a school zone with a loaded, unregistered AR on the passenger seat with an inserted 30-round mag, I don't believe jury nullification is a good idea to prevent the defendant's conviction - nor efficient, nor a good way to fight for our rights.

I think the CA laws that would have been violated here are ridiculous - like most Calgunners, I suspect. We all know the 10 round limit is stupid, that the school zone thing is dubious and difficult to put in practice, that the carrying laws are a joke, etc.

But the law is the law here. Is it a stupid law? Sure. Are they unconstitutional? We'll know soon for some of them. Should they be observed nonetheless? Yes.

Not because they make sense. But because while cumbersome, stupid, annoying, inefficient, violating them and failing to convict those who break them just hurt us gun owners in our fight to restore the spirit of the law.

Jury nullification would not attract positive attention to our fight, unlike the civil rights examples given earlier. They would only make the nullifying juror look like a radical wingnut, outrage the antis, and so on. In this state, it simply is useless.

a1c
03-30-2010, 4:36 PM
Then why when i go to jury duty and go through the whole process and the people that get picked are the ones who speak little english, the guy who looks like he is half asleep and staring at the ceiling and maybe the one guy or lady that can actually say a sentence without a like or Uh ah every other word?

I don't know. Must be your neighborhood. :p

I understand both the DA and Def att want people that will basically side with them. I CAN walk in a court room and be completely unbiased. I will hear both sides and make a fair judgment when I am given all the facts. Dont get me wrong the last thing I want to do is spend a week in court hearing a bunch of boring where upon and what here to and there for. I got WAY better things to do with my time. BUT I can go and be completely impartial and make a fair decision. I dont care what the guy did in the past. He is on trial for what he did now etc.

You got it. I don't know why only the weirdos and illiterate seem to get picked in your court.

stag1500
03-30-2010, 4:41 PM
So what, if any, are the consequences for a juror who elects to vote with his conscience?

If the juror is blatantly trying to exercise jury nullification, he'll be removed. However, it depends on the facts presented in the case. There could be enough facts to support the view that's consistent with the juror's conscience.

a1c
03-30-2010, 4:46 PM
I do you believe you stated as much when you said that for the sake of justice, a determination to nullify must be told the court up front. Do you know of any chance for any nullification to occur under those circumstances? Logic then demands that you are opposed to all nullification, unless of course you now feel that sometimes for the sake of justice a determination to nullify can be concealed? You can't have it both ways.

You're using the hypothetical AR situation is rather humorous. A registered gun fires just as well as an unregistered one. A Glock model 22 with 16 rounds and a spare mag is as many rounds as the AR, and .40 cal can mess up someone's day as much as a .223 (unless the kids are wearing level III body armor). If we were a truly free people, I could walk by the school yard with a full-auto and anyone with any sense would feel safe, because such a thing would be so common it would be boring. It is in Israel, and the people there are glad that Israeli citizens can carry major heat to take out terrorists.

We agree. I don't think you read my post correctly.

So, stupid laws should "be observed nonetheless"? Would you have been saying that in the 1800's when people refused to turn in fleeing slaves? Of course not, you'll tell me (at least I hope so) - you'll say this was a moral issue. Well, our 2nd amendment right IS a moral issue. And by the way, the Constitution didn't give us that right, rather it was written to guarantee that government wouldn't take it away from us. Now, lawmakers simply ignore the Constitution, as there are now literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws that infringe that right.

I think this parallel might get this thread godwinned very quickly.


Failing to convict those who break the unjust laws will send a powerful message to prosecutors and judges that we will use all peaceful means to protect our freedoms.

Not in California it won't. And even if we weren't in Cali - you would need an overwhelming nullification movement over the very same laws in order to get any change.

"Jury nullification would not attract positive attention to our fight" - You really think there's anything we can do that the anti-gun nuts will consider to be positive? Those not in their camp automatically show they have enough common sense to know a just cause when they see it.

Actually I do think we can do things that are seen as positive.


"outrage the antis" - Really? As if they are not already enraged with us? Let's enrage them a little more and help them blow a gasket. Make them take a little time out going to the doctor for high blood-pressure instead of harassing us.

Ha. Well as much as it's an entertaining image, I don't think it will do much for us otherwise...

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 5:20 PM
BTW, thank your wife for trying to put away the bad guys.

command_liner
03-30-2010, 5:26 PM
Do you have examples?

Of course.

In my case, in my city, it is a crime to install a furnace without a building
permit. So my furnace installation had a building permit and we proceeded
along thought Title 24. T24 requires that the furnace be installed according
to the manufacturer's instructions. For new condensing furnaces, like mine,
the acidic combustion condensate discharge must be routed through ABS or
approved polybutylene pipe. Use of metal pipe is prohibited because the
acidic discharge will dissolve the pipes.

Title 24 further specifies that any piping running through a garage must be
metallic, to prevent failure during a fire.

When a drain from a condensing furnace runs through a garage, it must
be plastic, and it must be metallic. It is a crime for it not to be both. What
happens to the acidic discharge from these condensing furnaces, the ones
that actually meet the 95% efficiency points that are mandated? It is
not permitted to dump it on the ground in most cases, and it cannot be
routed to that laundry sink or water softener air gap you have in the garage
because no permitted pipe exists. You cannot wet drain it into your
vent stack because that is illegal too.

Title 24 and various environmental laws have these sorts of irreconcilable
discontinuities.

OleCuss
03-30-2010, 5:42 PM
Kinda curious. Can you put a metal pipe around your non-metallic pipe (as a sleeve-type arrangement) for its course through the garage?

a1c
03-30-2010, 5:44 PM
BTW, thank your wife for trying to put away the bad guys.

Will do. I appreciate the thought. They don't pay her enough! :)

a1c
03-30-2010, 5:45 PM
Of course.

In my case, in my city, it is a crime to install a furnace without a building
permit. So my furnace installation had a building permit and we proceeded
along thought Title 24. T24 requires that the furnace be installed according
to the manufacturer's instructions. For new condensing furnaces, like mine,
the acidic combustion condensate discharge must be routed through ABS or
approved polybutylene pipe. Use of metal pipe is prohibited because the
acidic discharge will dissolve the pipes.

Title 24 further specifies that any piping running through a garage must be
metallic, to prevent failure during a fire.

When a drain from a condensing furnace runs through a garage, it must
be plastic, and it must be metallic. It is a crime for it not to be both. What
happens to the acidic discharge from these condensing furnaces, the ones
that actually meet the 95% efficiency points that are mandated? It is
not permitted to dump it on the ground in most cases, and it cannot be
routed to that laundry sink or water softener air gap you have in the garage
because no permitted pipe exists. You cannot wet drain it into your
vent stack because that is illegal too.

Title 24 and various environmental laws have these sorts of irreconcilable
discontinuities.

That's crazy! I think you need a lawyer. :p

command_liner
03-30-2010, 6:06 PM
That's crazy! I think you need a lawyer. :p

You fail to see the obvious solutions!

1) Acid proof metallic pipe. Solid gold and solid platinum will work.

2) Tear out a wall, jack hammer the slab, cut into the existing drain
under your house and run a dedicated ABS drain line with trap to
your new furnace.

Keep in mind this is your Federal Stimulus law at work.

Bishop
03-30-2010, 6:46 PM
Please remember that if you plan to nullify a jury, you may find yourself in contempt of court.

The judge is the law in his courtroom, and if the judge says you need to follow his instructions to decide on the case in the manner he specifies, and you overtly disobey those instructions, you can find yourself in contempt of court.

So whatever you do, don't vote 'not guilty' because you think it shouldn't be a law. But if you vote 'not guilty' because you truly believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, he didn't do it, well then you can only be faulted for being a fool.

Simply replying that the prosecution failed to prove the case to you beyond a reasonable doubt is enough, but know that mentioning or hinting at nullification can get you sent home or found to be in contempt.

Shotgun Man
03-30-2010, 7:32 PM
Please remember that if you plan to nullify a jury, you may find yourself in contempt of court.

The judge is the law in his courtroom, and if the judge says you need to follow his instructions to decide on the case in the manner he specifies, and you overtly disobey those instructions, you can find yourself in contempt of court.

So whatever you do, don't vote 'not guilty' because you think it shouldn't be a law. But if you vote 'not guilty' because you truly believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, he didn't do it, well then you can only be faulted for being a fool.

Simply replying that the prosecution failed to prove the case to you beyond a reasonable doubt is enough, but know that mentioning or hinting at nullification can get you sent home or found to be in contempt.

Yes, don't mention jury nullification, as it will you get you kicked off the jury.

Contempt of court-- doubtful. I've never heard of that happening. I guess there are a few yahoo judges who might try it. Basically, you're being conscripted into service, and now you have to go to jail because you refuse to follow their ridiculous laws?

I recall being called to jury service in 1995. Those bastards had the audacity to tell me that I couldn't wear shorts (i.e., short pants). I informed them that I'm gonna wear what I wanna wear and deal with the consequences.

This was in the SFV in the middle of summer with temps in the 90s. I served a week trying out for the panels in my shorts. No one had the balls to challenge me after I asserted I was going to stand my ground.

Also, how dare they search you, as a juror, upon entering the courthouse? You are being ordered by the government to come to court, yet they they condition their order upon you forsaking your 4th Amendment rights?

Someone ought to challenge that. All we need is a juror who has been summoned. He tries to enter the courthouse. The security attempts to search him, make him empty his pockets, etc. He refuses. He is barred from admission.

Then the judiciary attempts to screw him with fines, etc., for failing to show up for jury service. He will say that the judiciary prevented him from complying by forcing him to forsake his constitutional rights.

REH
03-30-2010, 8:15 PM
Just got off of jury duty today. I was tossed by the defense attorney. Interesting question before the attorneys started tossing." Do you belong to any organization that either try's to strengthen or reduce the laws?" The NRA was sighted as an example. So up went my hand.

REH
03-30-2010, 8:18 PM
Please remember that if you plan to nullify a jury, you may find yourself in contempt of court.

The judge is the law in his courtroom, and if the judge says you need to follow his instructions to decide on the case in the manner he specifies, and you overtly disobey those instructions, you can find yourself in contempt of court.

So whatever you do, don't vote 'not guilty' because you think it shouldn't be a law. But if you vote 'not guilty' because you truly believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, he didn't do it, well then you can only be faulted for being a fool.

Simply replying that the prosecution failed to prove the case to you beyond a reasonable doubt is enough, but know that mentioning or hinting at nullification can get you sent home or found to be in contempt.

This question was asked by both attorneys to the jury. Seems to be a common question.

command_liner
03-30-2010, 8:20 PM
Also, how dare they search you, as a juror, upon entering the courthouse? You are being ordered by the government to come to court, yet they they condition their order upon you forsaking your 4th Amendment rights?

Someone ought to challenge that. All we need is a juror who has been summoned. He tries to enter the courthouse. The security attempts to search him, make him empty his pockets, etc. He refuses. He is barred from admission.


Ah yes. Just last year I was summoned to Federal Jury Duty right down
the street at the Santa Ana court house. I can walk there in a pinch,
but it is an easy bike ride. So I checked the map for GFSZ interaction
and decided UOC might work.

A letter was sent to the federal jury pool director and CC'd to the US
Marshalls that work the door. I asked where a jury member could
check a weapon upon entry into the courthouse. The reply: "You
are dismissed.".

Some time soon this will be litigated. Do certain civil rights become
dormant for jurors? Why can LEOs check weapons at the door, but
not jurors? Especially for federal juries? What about witnesses in
federal cases? Can a LEO witness check weapons at the door, but
not a non-LEO? Are there two classes of citizens?

OlderThanDirt
03-30-2010, 9:29 PM
Just got off of jury duty today. I was tossed by the defense attorney. Interesting question before the attorneys started tossing." Do you belong to any organization that either try's to strengthen or reduce the laws?" The NRA was sighted as an example. So up went my hand.

You should have raised both hands and put at least one foot in the air. When asked what the hell you are doing, you could have responded that you are a member of numerous organizations (NRA, CRPA, GOA...), but that you had to leave one foot on the ground or you would have fallen down.

POLICESTATE
03-30-2010, 9:50 PM
Yes there are two classes of US citizens:

Patricians and Plebians. Some Plebians are in charge of watching over the rest of us plebs so they get extra privileges but make no mistake, the Patricians control our society.

Here are some examples of our Patricians:
Meg Whitman
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Barack Obama
Kennedys
Rockefellers
Waltons
Bush

Here are some examples of our Plebians:
Most, if not all, of the people on CGN
Most, if not all, of the people you encounter in your daily life (unless they are not US citizens)



Ah yes. Just last year I was summoned to Federal Jury Duty right down
the street at the Santa Ana court house. I can walk there in a pinch,
but it is an easy bike ride. So I checked the map for GFSZ interaction
and decided UOC might work.

A letter was sent to the federal jury pool director and CC'd to the US
Marshalls that work the door. I asked where a jury member could
check a weapon upon entry into the courthouse. The reply: "You
are dismissed.".

Some time soon this will be litigated. Do certain civil rights become
dormant for jurors? Why can LEOs check weapons at the door, but
not jurors? Especially for federal juries? What about witnesses in
federal cases? Can a LEO witness check weapons at the door, but
not a non-LEO? Are there two classes of citizens?

SchooBaka
03-30-2010, 10:02 PM
"The exact level of tyranny that you're going to live under, is the level of tyranny you put up with."
- Thomas Jefferson

I for one, think that there is no such thing as wasted time when it comes to the decision on the fate of our fellow man.

Doheny
03-30-2010, 10:08 PM
We're a nation of laws, that's how things work. It's called the legal system, because things are suppose to work a certain way, which may not always be the way we agree with.

For those who say they would find a gunny innocent just because he's a gunny, what makes you different than those who say they'd find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny? You better hope you don't get one of them on your jury if you ever find yourself in court.

Shotgun Man
03-30-2010, 10:12 PM
We're a nation of laws, that's how things work. It's called the legal system, because things are suppose to work a certain way, which may not always be the way we agree with.

For those who say they would find a gunny innocent just because he's a gunny, what makes you different than those who say they'd find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny? You better hope you don't get one of them on your jury if you ever find yourself in court.

I think the prevailing theme of this thread is don't be shy to shun your government in its eternal quest of pursuing mischief.

adamsreeftank
03-30-2010, 11:22 PM
We're a nation of laws, that's how things work. It's called the legal system, because things are suppose to work a certain way, which may not always be the way we agree with.

For those who say they would find a gunny innocent just because he's a gunny, what makes you different than those who say they'd find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny? You better hope you don't get one of them on your jury if you ever find yourself in court.

I was taught that we are a nation of checks and balances. That is why there are three branches of government and that is why there are jury trials.

What do you propose when the legal system is staffed by people who would find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny?

Mulay El Raisuli
03-31-2010, 7:42 AM
"The exact level of tyranny that you're going to live under, is the level of tyranny you put up with."
- Thomas Jefferson

I for one, think that there is no such thing as wasted time when it comes to the decision on the fate of our fellow man.


THIS! And from this flows my thinking on what a1c has written.


Jury nullification is a cowardly and petty form of after the fact legislation. You are not going to change anything about gun laws by doing it. Legislators don't look at what's happening in lower courts to draft laws. They don't care. All you're doing is pissing off DAs and cops, who cannot do anything about those laws, including those they disagree personally with.


History tells us different. A big part of the push for repealing Prohibition was the fact that juries were increasingly unwilling to convict over violations of the Volstead Act. And, while jury nullification didn't directly lead to the repeal of slavery, the increasing inability to get juries to convict members of the "Underground Railroad" made our masters aware that "the Peculiar Institution" was due to go.

As for your touching faith in the ability of We The People to influence our masters in the writing of legislation, we just had a shining example of how well that works (Health Care), didn't we?


But the law is the law here. Is it a stupid law? Sure. Are they unconstitutional? We'll know soon for some of them. Should they be observed nonetheless? Yes.

Not because they make sense. But because while cumbersome, stupid, annoying, inefficient, violating them and failing to convict those who break them just hurt us gun owners in our fight to restore the spirit of the law.

Jury nullification would not attract positive attention to our fight, unlike the civil rights examples given earlier. They would only make the nullifying juror look like a radical wingnut, outrage the antis, and so on. In this state, it simply is useless.


All of this was said about Prohibition & slavery. Those saying it then were just as wrong as you are now. Because, at the time, blacks & booze weren't seen as 'nice' causes either.


Jury nullification is not a form of civil disobedience.


I'm guessing this is the root of your insulting comments (calling those who nullify "cowards") & attitude? In any event, what is & is not "civil disobedience" isn't for you to proclaim upon us like the laird of the manor. Even if nullification saves just one person from being ground up by a stupid law, it's still worth doing. Because, friend, in this country, the individual still matters.


No. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional when a higher court says it is. There are many people who each have their interpretation of the US Constitution. Even the nine Justices in the SCOTUS each have a different interpretation of what the Second amendment is.


As it happens, I am cursed with having a brother who is a total slave to the Bradys. Whatever they say is better than Gospel to him. And the "each have their interpretation..." bit is a real BIG thing with him & everyone else on that side of the aisle. Now, I'm not saying that you are a troll, but seeing you write those words does give pause.


The Raisuli

BobB35
03-31-2010, 8:02 AM
We're a nation of laws, that's how things work. It's called the legal system, because things are suppose to work a certain way, which may not always be the way we agree with.

For those who say they would find a gunny innocent just because he's a gunny, what makes you different than those who say they'd find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny? You better hope you don't get one of them on your jury if you ever find yourself in court.

Actually not really...this is a progressive view that some disconnected judge/attorney/legislature can write something down on paper and people will just naturally do what it says.

In reality...what is a law? it is the justification of the use of force...therefore we are a nation of the justification of the use of force or a nation of force...what if that justification is incorrect...will you be able to correct it through the ballot box? The founders of this country didn't think so, therefore they picked up arms and used force to overthrow those who would attempt to use force to make them do things they didn't want.....in our post modern namby pambly world this simple fact is lost on most people as they DEMAND their government take care of them. Those who can will and those who won't will be forced to.....

Think about this simple thought and then look at the US....The department of homeland security is anything but....paramilitary police without the duty or responsibility to protect anything or anyone don't really have a purpose...never ending expansion of the government control over the citizens lives.... Read the declaration of independence if you can and you will understand that what we rebelled against has been totally surpassed by our current government with barely a whisper...and I am always amazed at those who think compromise actually leads to something good....

Phil79
03-31-2010, 1:54 PM
It's people that make the SYSTEM work the way it does. It doesn't happen by itself. Laws are not living creatures, nor do they have power by themselves. More learned men than both of us (Supreme Court Justices) have stated that the people have the RIGHT to judge the law. If you don't want or can't accept that responsibility then you can follow the rest of the sheep on a jury that wants to "hang" a man or woman just because they exercise their right of self-protection, and just because the judge and DA tells them they must.

What makes me different is that there are already enough empty-brain nuts who vote a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny. That's why there needs to be more like me.

We're a nation of laws, that's how things work. It's called the legal system, because things are suppose to work a certain way, which may not always be the way we agree with.

For those who say they would find a gunny innocent just because he's a gunny, what makes you different than those who say they'd find a gunny guilty just because he's a gunny? You better hope you don't get one of them on your jury if you ever find yourself in court.

Flopper
03-31-2010, 3:00 PM
I can't believe there's so many in here that think jury nullification isn't valid.

Pretty sad actually.

A paraphrase: The Law was made for Man; Man was NOT made for the Law.

Bishop
03-31-2010, 4:05 PM
If you can't get 12 random people to agree that something should be against the law, why would you think it should still be a law?

Skullster
03-31-2010, 4:14 PM
.... Are there two classes of citizens?

Yep! The have's and the have not's. Typically, the have's dictate to the have not's what they can or cannot have and how much of it they can either have or not have. This cycle goes on until many of the have not's and some have's with a moral compass (spine) can no longer tolerate some of the have's tyranny and control over the have not masses. If I recall my history correctly this may have been the hot button as to how this great nation came about. All men are created equal however that does not infer they remain that way.

Hence we are now at a crossroads where the have's and have not's are clashing yet again. This time the have's are domestic political elitists as opposed to a foreign monarchy. But I digress.

I would jury nullify someone charged for example with refusing to purchase health care insurance. I know that this is now a crime because Pelosi informed me I would find out what was in the LAW once it passed.

It's now time for All Good Men and States to call for an Article 5 convention.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f297/pshaughn/article_5_convention_small_version3.jpg
1) Make clear that the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress only to regulate COMMERCE that is INTERSTATE (as the Supreme Court recognized before 1937);
2) Empower individual taxpayers and state governments to bring suit for injunctive relief in case Congress exceeds the bounds of its powers, as clarified by this amendment (lawyers call this giving individuals and states standing to sue for injunctive relief) and declare that these questions are justiciable (not "political questions" that the federal courts should dodge);
3) Make clear that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is about nothing other than Due Process in judicial proceedings -- that is, that it doesn't give federal courts power to invent rights unknown to the ratifiers and does not make the federal Bill of Rights enforceable by federal judges against the states;
4) Repeal the 17th Amendment *and* give the state legislatures the power of recall over US senators (and thus give state legislatures a check on Congress's tendency to usurp state legislative authority);
5) Require a balanced federal budget except in time of war declared by Congress;
6) Empower state legislatures to overturn federal judges' constitutional decisions. This could be done by saying that if 2/3 of legislatures vote to do so, it is done, or in some other way.