Uechi-Ryu.com

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 7:47 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: What is to prevent someone with a perverse agenda from nullifying laws only he/she views as offending, but others (say a majority) don't? Now, of course there are some laudable and sometimes necessary agendas that the nation has wrestled with. Slavery and race relations being biggies. The Northerners who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, we all agree, did noble deeds. But, what of the proverbial racist who nullifies the Voting Rights Act? I'm sure we can think of some other concrete examples that we would be disgusted at if a jury acquits of a law we all deem necessary.

Just look at Panther's and Yosselle's posting. Yoselle wants to attack the anti-drug laws. Panther then wants to attack gun-control laws (among others, I;m sure : ) ). Assuming those examples don't bug me too much (the drug one does a bit, but that's for another story), how do we stop someone or some group from attacking necessary laws?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good questions, but first we must reach an agreement on the definition of necessary laws.

So, in your opinion, what is the threshold percentage of the population that needs to hold a non-majoritarian point of view on the necessity of a law before you would acknowledge that it was possible that the law in question might not be necessary? As an aside, is that percentage different if our test was for tyranny (of the majority) rather than necessity?

Remember, a cornerstone of our Constitution is the protection of the minority and the defense of individual rights. Be careful how you answer.

Yosselle
-- 50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 7:49 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Yosselle:

If every "cite" needed to be certified and notarized to qualify as authoritative, then not many things would get proven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't mean to intimate that as the case... I was just curious because I found the cases and decisions fascinating personally...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

In the meantime, go to http://www.fija.org for more info.

I've surfed over there... The "Fully Informed Jury Association". Great site with loads of information. Highly recommended to anyone, especially lawyers tha believe in freedom.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

'scuse me for being slow...

I just understood the connection with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Nice. Another one that I like...

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 8:56 pm**

I have a lot of interest in this topic, as well as a strong opinion of jury nullification. In my opinion, jury nullification is morally and ethically wrong.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think jury nullification may be defined as a juror intentionally voting guilty or not guilty despite the evidence and the instructions of the trial judge. A juror has a legal and ethical obligation to honestly decide the facts and apply the law as the judge instructs. If a juror is unable or unwilling to do that due to his or her sincerely held beliefs, then the ethical juror will step forward and tell the Court why he or she cannot serve. In my opinion, that is the honest, ethical manner in which a juror may follow the dictates of conscience. If a juror promises to lawfully complete his duty, and then intentionally fails to do so, then in my opinion the juror acts in an unethical and cowardly manner.

A juror may make excuses for failing to do the right thing and claim that it is due to a strongly held belief that society or the laws are unjust. That is nothing more than a self righteous attempt to put a shine on a sneaker. If one is unable to honestly carry out his obligation as a juror, then the obligation must be turned down.

Norm Abrahamson

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 9:48 pm**

Norm,

Welcome to the "tough issues" forum...

I'll wait to see how others respond, but I wonder if you've read the cites previously mentioned...

(Remember folks... try to be nice... Discuss the issues...

)

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 9:56 pm**

Hi Norm,

Norm is a practicing attorney in Massachusetts, for those of you who don't know. **Possibly offfensive remarks deleted - I just wanted to be a bit "proactive" in ensuring a safe, lively and civilized discussion onthe topic(s) at hand. Since everyone knows how to play nice and Panther has his hand on the "flush" button, I guess the comment aren't needed anymore.**

When Congress passes a law, the President signs it, when/if the judicial review system views the law as Constitutional, that is our process at work.

As far as necessary laws, that's an interesting one, and complex. If we buy into the idea of equal protection, then we need to believe that laws exist to protect the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, with equal rights for all. We also must weigh individual liberties vs. the common good. I guess with tyranny, there are no protection of individual liberies, nor possibly protection of the rights of the minority, nor equal rights for all. One can look at tyranical gov'ts. today, around the world, and compare and contrast theirs to ours.

So, it's not so much a threshold number of people, but a balance between those two differing sides on the issues at hand, and their effect on the very people (like you and me) the law is design to govern. This, ladies and gentlemen, can be real conflict.

Whn this thread started, I wrote "... Don't like a law? Write your Congressman and Senators, both state and federal, or do those other things we can do in a free, representative republic."

Later, Panther wrote "...Shouldn't we be taking our suggestions to our duly elected officials? ".

That is where the system feeds from, in my opinion.

Did I make sense (whether you agree or disagree)?

Gene

[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2001 10:20 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:

Norm is a practicing attorney in Massachusetts, for those of you who don't know. He doesn't need anyone getting on his case about his opnions (nor does he need me to defend him). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone can post their opinions (within certain reason and protocol) on this forum. However, if you post your opinion as part of the discussion, then those that disagree with your opinion certainly have the right to voice not only their disagreement, but any supporting data for that disagreement. I take issue with your insinuation that disagreeing or even taking someone to task for their stated views shouldn't be done... He posted here and therefore his opinions (like everyone elses) are fair game. I won't tolerate personal attacks, but opinions, debate, dialog and discussion are open.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I just wanted to head that off at the pass....

I think I already told everyone to "play nice"...

However, Norm's profession as an attorney doesn't give his opinions any more weight than anyone elses. It just doesn't work that way. I, personally, have some serious thoughts on his post, but am refraining from responding for the time being and giving others the opportunity to respond first. Since this is an open forum for discussion of tough issues and given the fact that we all have our inalienable 1st Amendment Rights, endowed upon us by our creator, intact... And as long as propriety is maintained, there will be no infringement of that Right on my forum. Whether we all agree and have a virtual "lovefest" or not.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 12:03 am**

First of all, welcome, Norm. Please don't take anything here personally. I just like a good argument

.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: In my opinion, jury nullification is morally and ethically wrong. For the purposes of this discussion, I think jury nullification may be defined as a juror intentionally voting guilty or not guilty despite the evidence and the instructions of the trial judge.

Much the same way as a hypothetical German death camp guard might disobey the orders of his Kommandant? Judges are in the employ of the State. Juries represent the People.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: A juror has a legal and ethical obligation to honestly decide the facts and apply the law as the judge instructs.

We've been through this before. Juries have the right (and moral duty) to judge the law (as well as the facts). This has been well established. It only benefits the State and injures the People to hold your view. That is why the truth about jury nullification is hard to come by.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: If a juror is unable or unwilling to do that due to his or her sincerely held beliefs, then the ethical juror will step forward and tell the Court why he or she cannot serve. In my opinion, that is the honest, ethical manner in which a juror may follow the dictates of conscience. If a juror promises to lawfully complete his duty, and then intentionally fails to do so, then in my opinion the juror acts in an unethical and cowardly manner.

"Your Honor, because I believe that this newly enacted law against owning gold that carries a $10,000 fine or 10 year prison term is unjust, I must do my duty, deny my conscience, step down from the jury and allow the machinery of State to destroy the life of this defendent because he owns a piece of metal."

"Your Honor, I know harboring escaped slaves is against the law, and clearly this woman commited the crime, but my conscience won't permit me to convict this defendent. Therefore, I must respectfully decline to serve on this jury. As a law-abiding citizen and supporter of our government and system of laws, I truly hope that all men of conscience step down from juries in trials of this type so that our courts are not mocked and so that the lawful institution of slavery may survive as long as our duly elected representatives think best."

The lawful duty of every juror is to vote their conscience, regardless of the unlawful instructions of the judge to convict someone for violating an unjust law.

According to Martin Luther King Jr., quoting St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all";

And judges and officers of the court might consider well the fate of others who "were just following orders" when they deliberately mislead a jury into unjust rubberstamp convictions.

It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771

.....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.
--Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782

Another apprehension [about the French Revolution] is, that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution....
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Tom Paine, 1789

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 have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.
--Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
--Alexander Hamilton, 1804

Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.
--Noah Webster, Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

In all criminal cases whatsoever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
--Article I, §19, Constitution of the State of Indiana

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.
--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920

Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
-- Albert Einstein

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: A juror may make excuses for failing to do the right thing and claim that it is due to a strongly held belief that society or the laws are unjust. That is nothing more than a self righteous attempt to put a shine on a sneaker. If one is unable to honestly carry out his obligation as a juror, then the obligation must be turned down.

Good thing Schindler wasn't on any of those juries in those endless jury trials the Nazis held against the Jews during WWII. He would have had a heck of a wrestling match with his conscience. Of course, you would have had him recuse himself. Oh... I just forgot... there weren't any jury trials against the Jews. Ever wonder why? Of course, you could argue that we do have jury trials. But I would argue that it's a only a small series of steps from fully informed juries that represent the people, to rubber stamp juries of 12 that do the bidding of the State, to juries of 6 and then no juries at all.

Yosselle
-- 50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 22, 2001).]

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 5:27 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Gene DeMambro: When Congress passes a law, the President signs it, when/if the judicial review system views the law as Constitutional, that is our process at work.

Not exactly. Ideally, our sworn representatives would not pass unconstitutional laws (that's what their oaths are for. And when they break their oaths, they become traitors, dontchaknow

.) Today, most "lawmakers" break their oaths all the time, passing one abominable, oppressive bill after another. Of course, at the Federal level, the President (of either party) is no better. He signs most of them into law. It is then up to us (at our expense) to fight them in court. If we're lucky (and rich) we can sometimes successfully challange a bad law (even without jury nullification - if we get a decent judge). But we shouldn't have to. There shouldn't be any unconstitutional, unjust laws on the books in the first place. When one does slip by a sleeping (or malicious) House or Senate, it is the right of the People to take it upon themselves (by way of jury nullification) to nip such tyranny in the bud. What use is petitioning the very government that by omission or comission sanctioned the unjust law in the first place? Why ask the fox to guard the hen house?

Also, judicial review (see Marburry v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) as the landmark example) only occurs after a law has been put on the books. Judicial Review is the doctrine that allows judges to annul legislative or executive acts as unconstitutional. BTW, in that case, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that in any conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, the Constitution must always take precedence.

So think of Jury Nullification as People Review. After all, if judges (whose authority is granted to them by the People by way of the creation of government via the Constitution), have the power to declare a law null and void, then logically the grantors of that authority (the People) must have equal or greator authority. Therefore, if Judicial Review is legitimate, then Jury Nullification MUST be legitimate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:As far as necessary laws, that's an interesting one, and complex. If we buy into the idea of equal protection, then we need to believe that laws exist to protect the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, with equal rights for all.

Very mixed bag. Equal rights for all is a given. But, be careful of what you call a "right". Equal protection means equal application of the law to all individuals. The law exists for one reason - to protect the rights of individuals. The will of the majority has one legitimate purpose - to elect representatives that will defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, with the concommitant goal of developing and maintaining a body of laws consistent with the Constitution that protects the rights (ie. freedoms) of individuals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:We also must weigh individual liberties vs. the common good.

True. But individual liberty must be given overwhelming preference (as intended by our founders).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:I guess with tyranny, there are no protection of individual liberies, nor possibly protection of the rights of the minority, nor equal rights for all. One can look at tyranical gov'ts. today, around the world, and compare and contrast theirs to ours.

Don't look to closely. You might not like what you see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:So, it's not so much a threshold number of people, but a balance between those two differing sides on the issues at hand, and their effect on the very people (like you and me) the law is design to govern. This, ladies and gentlemen, can be real conflict.

There is no conflict. Legitimate law does not govern me. I govern myself. The law is there to punish those who infringe on the rights of others. No more. No less. More would be tyranny. Less would be anarchy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:Whn this thread started, I wrote "... Don't like a law? Write your Congressman and Senators, both state and federal, or do those other things we can do in a free, representative republic."

Later, Panther wrote "...Shouldn't we be taking our suggestions to our duly elected officials? ".

That is where the system feeds from, in my opinion.

Did I make sense (whether you agree or disagree)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... yes... But then I believe that the foxes can be trained to obey the hen house rules

Yosselle -- 50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 2:03 pm**

Just another word on the will of the majority. The founders realized that occaisional irrational passions would grip the population (or portions of the population). They did not consider such passions to be the will of the people. They held that only the well-reasoned, time-tested beliefs of the people could be trusted to guide our nation and keep it free. This will of the people first expressed itself in the creation of the Constitution. It subsequently expresses itself indirectly through the elected representatives of the people (who are sworn to uphold the Constitution).

There is a reason that all elected officials all over the nation are not elected on the same day. There is also a reason that the people in one county do not elect officials in a different county and that people in New Jersey don't elect officials in Massachusetts. This is the same reason that there is an electoral college to indirectly elect the president and why the seventeenth Amendment was a bad idea. It all has to do with protecting our system from momentary passions that might replace the entire government in one fell swoop and from keeping the power and influence of government focused at the local level. The more indirectly an elected official was elected, the less influence on our daily lives he/she was supposed to have. The ultimate goal is to prevent the tyranny of government (or the passions of the majority though the instrument of government) over the People.

Our complex and delicate electoral system was deliberately designed in overlapping temporal and geographical layers. This was done to place a buffer between the momentary passions of the people and the well-reasoned, long-term better judgement of the people (which the founders firmly believed would always come down on the side of freedom over tyranny).

So, in light of all that (and in light of the Constitution itself), what would the founders have thought about the U.S. Congress contemplating the criminalization of the use of cell phones in automobiles?

Yosselle
-- 50 Years of Progress: 1943-1993, Warsaw to Waco

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 3:17 pm**

To Yoselle and Panther, I certainly do not take offense to your comments and opinions and hope that my thoughts are received in the same spirit. A discussion where everybody agrees on all points would be dull indeed.

Yoselle, you wrote that in my view perhaps a juror should say something along the lines of:

"Your Honor, because I believe that this newly enacted law against owning gold that carries a $10,000 fine or 10 year prison term is unjust, I must do my duty, deny my conscience, step down from the jury and allow the machinery of State to destroy the life of this defendent because he owns a piece of metal."

You are exactly correct. It is not up to a juror to determine the constitutionality of a law. You correctly cited Marbury v. Madison for the proposition that the judiciary may review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. There is no "people's review" nor in my opinion should there be. Jurors have the right to vote, the ultimate power over Congress.

In Massachusetts, all jurors take the following oath as part of a non-capital criminal case: "You shall well and truly try the issue between the commonwealth and the defendant, according to your evidence; so help you God." M.G.L. c. 278 sec. 4. If you are willing to take the oath, then you should be willing to carry out the obligation imposed by your oath.

Yoselle's reference to a Nazi death camp guard following orders is emotionally powerful, but not useful analogy. The differences of the situations are obvious. The juror fits into our constitutional scheme of government. Service on a jury is a right and privilege accorded citizens as a protection to criminal defendants. That hardly fits the situation of death camp guards, all of whom were volunteers and eager for service.

True civil disobedience is where a person states the reason for his action and puts himself on the line. It is difficult to risk loss of personal liberty or even physical harm in furtherance of a belief. It is easy to act furtively for an unstated agenda with no risk to oneself.

Norm Abrahamson

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 3:18 pm**

Dear Yosselle:

I just noticed I misspelled your name in my prior post.

My apologies.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 6:23 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson:
To Yoselle and Panther, I certainly do not take offense to your comments and opinions and hope that my thoughts are received in the same spirit. A discussion where everybody agrees on all points would be dull indeed.

Yoselle, you wrote that in my view perhaps a juror should say something along the lines of:

"Your Honor, because I believe that this newly enacted law against owning gold that carries a $10,000 fine or 10 year prison term is unjust, I must do my duty, deny my conscience, step down from the jury and allow the machinery of State to destroy the life of this defendent because he owns a piece of metal."

You are exactly correct. It is not up to a juror to determine the constitutionality of a law. You correctly cited Marbury v. Madison for the proposition that the judiciary may review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. There is no "people's review" nor in my opinion should there be. Jurors have the right to vote, the ultimate power over Congress.

In Massachusetts, all jurors take the following oath as part of a non-capital criminal case: "You shall well and truly try the issue between the commonwealth and the defendant, according to your evidence; so help you God." M.G.L. c. 278 sec. 4. If you are willing to take the oath, then you should be willing to carry out the obligation imposed by your oath.

Yoselle's reference to a Nazi death camp guard following orders is emotionally powerful, but not useful analogy. The differences of the situations are obvious. The juror fits into our constitutional scheme of government. Service on a jury is a right and privilege accorded citizens as a protection to criminal defendants. That hardly fits the situation of death camp guards, all of whom were volunteers and eager for service.

True civil disobedience is where a person states the reason for his action and puts himself on the line. It is difficult to risk loss of personal liberty or even physical harm in furtherance of a belief. It is easy to act furtively for an unstated agenda with no risk to oneself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply restating a position without supporting arguments while simultaneously ignoring previously presented historical, philosophical and logical arguments from the opposition may confuse the weak-minded, but is in reality just an evasion.

The only new point you have made that demands rebuttal is that an oath taken by a juror must be honored. This one is easy. There is a maxim of law which states:

Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

How many times have juries returned verdicts of guilty and then displayed much anquish afterward, lamenting their "required" verdict because it was not just.

If I am "forced" to take an oath against my will, then I have not taken the oath. And yes, I know I could step down, but my higher calling is to justice, not blind allegience to the protocols of the State. Therefore, to fulfill my duty to truth and justice, I must take the oath against my will in order to get empanelled on the jury.

So, with which (if any) of the quotes in my previous post by some of the giants of the founding era do you find fault?

Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege. An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.

Unless you are willing to rebutt with actual arguments rather than restatements of your position, I consider my position proven.

And besides: Perspicua vera non sunt probanda. Plain truths need not be proved. Co. Litt. 16.

As long as we're talking about oaths, as a member of the bar, would you please quote for us the exact oath that you took upon becoming an attorney? I've always been curious about that oath.

Yosselle

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 23, 2001).]

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 8:18 pm**

Well we finally have an attorney making an appearance (pun intended). Welcome Norm.

The Martial Arts and the Law Forum could use some re-enforcement with articles and decisions of importance.

I am pleased to see that we had ideas ranging from anarchy to tyranny.

What is important that we can voice these opinions without fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

I have, in my humble opinion, seen extreme replies to some of the questions I posed and statements made in the subject matter of this forum, but I have seen almost everyone duck the issue of what better system you would use if you advocate elimination of the jury system. I suggested sending such information to the ABA, and heard responses that they are too big and powerful and are privateers.

Well if they are large and powerful, is that not a beginning for your suggestions to be explored?

I have not heard one word about petitioning or writing our elected representatives or senators.

If you have complaints about any of our judicial systems, do you have answers to what should be done to correct the complaints?

We have Yin and Yang in Yosselle and Panther, and all degrees in between and betwixt.

What is great is that it is thought provoking and educational.

Norm, feel free to post on Martial Arts & the Law, and Panther has already welcomed you in this forum.

Gene, great job. I believe you represented the middle ground and still stirred up good response, as did all in this subject.

Alan K

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 8:48 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alan K:

I am pleased to see that we had ideas ranging from anarchy to tyranny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think those were presented as ideas that would be better than what we have... I believe that the premise is and should be that freedom, liberty, individual inalienable rights and personal responsibility are better than what we have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What is important that we can voice these opinions without fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

Sorry Alan, but there are just too many examples of the trampling of the 4th Amendment to let that statement stand...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have, in my humble opinion, seen extreme replies to some of the questions I posed and statements made in the subject matter of this forum, but I have seen almost everyone duck the issue of what better system you would use if you advocate elimination of the jury system.

Not true. Yosselle (and I) have stated that the return to the Constitution and Jury system as originally instituted by the Founders is the system we wish to have replace what is currently in place. The issue has not been "ducked", but the responses (including the excellent cites and quotes from Yosselle) hae been ignored or obfuscated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I suggested sending such information to the ABA, and heard responses that they are too big and powerful and are privateers.

Well if they are large and powerful, is that not a beginning for your suggestions to be explored?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. Here are a few in that regards:

1) Pass the originally proposed and actually passed 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which stated that no holder of a title of nobility (such as "Esquire") be allowed to hold public office in the united States.
2) Eliminate any organization that is political in nature which purports to be "professional" in nature. (such as the ABA) Since I believe in freedom, I actually don't believe it should be eliminated, just disallowed as a lobbying organization who's purpose is to line the pockets of it's members.
3) Eliminate "Voir Dire".
4) Disallow any member of the legal profession from holding elected office.
5) Inform all jurors about their RIGHT to judge the law as well as the incident and to mete out justice.
6) Return to the restriction on the State appealing verdicts that it doesn't like.
7) Return to true "Double Jeopardy prohibition". (meaning that if you are found innocent of a crime, you can't be charge for the same offense just because they move it from a State court to a Federal court.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have not heard one word about petitioning or writing our elected representatives or senators.

I think I mentioned that. I don't need to discuss my letters or phone calls with my elected officials here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If you have complaints about any of our judicial systems, do you have answers to what should be done to correct the complaints?

Already addressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

We have Yin and Yang in Yosselle and Panther, and all degrees in between and betwixt.

Actually, I think on this, we agree...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Gene, great job. I believe you represented the middle ground and still stirred up good response, as did all in this subject.

Middle ground!!!!! I disagree... More like a simple statement of belief in the status quo and the power of the State over the people.

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2001 10:03 pm**

Yosselle,

I'm afraid you miss the point regarding taking an oath. It is entirely voluntary. A person is not forced to take the oath or to serve against his or her conscience. A juror is presented with a simple choice: Take an oath and abide by the oath, or do not take the oath and do not serve. It may not be an easy choice to make, but the important ones never are.

In the infancy of the civil rights movement in this country, thousands of Black Americans sat at lunch counters, rode in the "White" section of buses, and marched to demand equal rights under the law. They did so openly and at great personal risk. In fact, many of those men and women were injured and killed for their actions. They acted heroically and according to the dictates of their conscience. They made a difficult choice and lived or died with the consequences. That is akin to standing up and saying that you cannot serve on a particular jury due to your personal belief. You may risk being cited for contempt of court, but that is a comparatively small risk. On the other hand, when several Los Angeles policemen were acquitted of charges of beating Rodney King, thousands of incensed citizens who were properly outraged, improperly rioted. They acted contrary to law and immorally. They were not heros, they were criminals. Their actions were analogous to jury nullification. They did not stand up to be counted for a belief, but hid in the shadows.

As to the swearing in oath for attorneys, I do not have the exact language handy and will try to get back to you. The part that stands out in my memory (it was a long time ago) is to uphold and obey the constitutions and laws of the United States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Lawyers are also bound by professional rules of conduct. A prohibited act of misconduct includes the following: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Mass. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d). To participate in jury nullification as a juror would violate that rule. In fact, even urging a juror to vote contrary to what he or she perceives to be facts of a case would likely violate that rule.

Norm Abrahamson