SEPTEMBER | Liberty
Activist
ACTION OF THE MONTH |
---|
JURY RIGHTS DAY
For September's Action of the Month, Liberty Activists suggests a celebration of Jury Rights Day (September 5, the day the jury acquitted William Penn) to bring this important issue to the public. The governors of several states have proclaimed Sept.5 to be Jury Rights Day.
For an excellent "op-ed" type column on Jury Rights from Penn to the present, see Shelly Waxman's article The Past is Prologue.
For flyers on Jury Rights, and extensive info, including videos on Jury Rights and a list of contacts in each state, contact The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)
(excerpts from FIJA "Jury Veto Power")
" In 1670, William Penn was arrested in London for preaching a Quaker sermon, which broke a law establishing the Church of England as the only legal church. The trial began September 1. His jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to convict him, despite being held for days without food, water, tobacco or toilet facilities--and then fined. The most defiant four of them refused to pay the fine and were then put in prison for nine weeks.
The highest court of England, upon releasing them, both acknowledged and established that trial jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Recognition of our freedoms of religion, peaceable assembly and speech thus all trace to the exercise of jury power, wielded by a jury unintimidated by government judges.
These days, trial by jury often doesn't accomplish all that it should. And the usurpation continues: trial judges now falsely tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" are sufficient to convict, and that if so, they "should" or "must" convict. Defense attorneys can face contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if they think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. And self-defenders are usually stopped and rebuked if they even mention their motives, or why they disagree with the law, to the jury.
Yet to this day, trial jurors retain the right to veto, or "nullify" bad laws, though they are rarely told this by the courts. Prosecutors and judges try to exclude people from serving on juries who admit knowing they can judge the law, or who have doubts about the justice of the law. This destroys the protections jurors were supposed to be able to invoke on behalf of fellow citizens against unjust prosecutions: how can our right to a trial by an impartial jury be met if those with any qualms about the law are excluded from serving?
The fact is, it cannot. Jury selection has degenerated into a jury-stacking contest between the attorneys and judge involved. And then, if those who survive the selection process bring in a verdict that the community does not like, who gets the blame?
Worse, after enough verdicts have disappointed or angered enough people, the politicians move in for the kill, arguing that the "jury system needs reform". By that they mean stripping even more power from the jury, using juries in fewer and fewer kinds of cases, allowing verdicts to be reached by a super-majority instead of a unanimous vote, replacing ordinary citizens with government-licensed professional jurors, etc.
Beware! All such reforms will lead only to a still more powerful government, and a less powerful citizenry. Justice would come to mean whatever the government says it means, and the people would be left with no peaceful method of controlling government tyranny. That is why it is time to act. It is time to share what you now know about the real role and power of the jury... "
ACLU - BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE In support of Laura Kriho September 15, 1997
You can now read the full text of the brilliant friend of the court brief written by David Lane for the ACLU on behalf of convicted juror Laura Kriho. It is online at: http://www.lrt.org/jrp.amicusbrief.htm
Outline of the Brief includes:
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED:
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF INQUIRY A COURT MUST EMPLOY
WHEN
INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR IMPROPRIETY DURING THE
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS?
ARGUMENT
I. IF THE JURY SYSTEM IS TO RETAIN ANY VITALITY, THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS
MUST BE IMMUNE FROM JUDICIAL SCRUTINY ABSENT COMPELLING EVIDENCE
OF SOME
EXTRINSIC INFLUENCE BROUGHT INTO DELIBERATIONS.
- A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE MUST APPEAR JUST
II. INVESTIGATION OF JUROR CONTEMPT MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO
INQUIRY
REGARDING EXTRINSIC INFLUENCES ON THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.
A. CURRENT STANDARDS FOR ADJUDICATING JUROR CONTEMPT
B. THIS COURT MUST PRESERVE THE SANCTITY OF THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS.
C. ALLEGATIONS OF JURY NULLIFICATION SHOULD NOT RESULT IN THE CLOAK
OF JURY
SECRECY BEING LIFTED.- HISTORY OF NULLIFICATION
D. JUROR SECRECY TAKES PRIORITY OVER PUNISHING AND INVESTIGATING
ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR MISCONDUCT
E. THE CONTEMPT ADJUDICATION MUST BE VACATED
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court must reverse the conviction of Laura Kriho and at the same time, send an unequivocal message to those who would sacrifice our jury system in order to punish those whose thoughts are divergent from the mainstream. The message must be strong and clear -- that the sanctity of the jury room will not be violated.
David A. Lane
730 Seventeenth Street, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Reg. No. 16422 (303) 534-6400
Amicus Curiae counsel for ACLU of Colorado
Email: mlkdal@usa.net
ACTIONS OF THE MONTH:
--Liberty Activist Home Page] Action] Tools--Issues] Organize] Reports] Awards] LibLinks ]
(c)1997,1998 Liberty Activists. Permission granted to use this material in any way provided credit is given