When Jurors Talk Back

The case for letting juries ask questions during trial

Steve Chapman | April 13, 2009

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in May 2006.

Jurors occupy an unusual position: They are expected to make vital decisions without being allowed to ask questions. While a trial is going on, courtroom spectators may hear from lawyers, judges, witnesses, aggrieved parties, defendants, and even court stenographers. But the people in the jury box, who hold the final power over the outcome, are required to sit as mute as the furniture.

In the past few years, some courts have tried a novel idea: letting jurors actively participate instead of serving as courtroom ornamentation. The federal courts in the 7th Circuit, encompassing Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, conducted an experiment in which members of the jury sitting in civil trials were allowed to submit questions for anyone testifying. From all the evidence, justice was well served.

With its formal rituals and solemn atmosphere, the trial system often gives the impression that it didn't evolve like other human institutions, but was handed down from heaven in unalterable form. Any fiddling with it raises fears we may be tugging on a thread that will cause the whole carpet to unravel.

But even the best rug may need minor renovation every century or so. Anyway, allowing jurors to ask questions is a revival of an old practice, which was eliminated only as lawyers became more important and the adversarial system became more rigid. As it happens, there is nothing about it that conflicts with the functioning or purpose of a trial.

Some states have already made the change. Arizona, for example, embraced it in criminal as well as civil trials as part of a 1995 package of reforms that included such no-brainers as letting jurors take notes and consult them. Indiana, Colorado, and Florida are among the other pioneers. But this was the first time the innovation has been tried extensively in the federal system.

The presiding judge would typically inform the panelists of this option at the beginning of the trial and then invite questions when the lawyers were done with each witness. Questions had to be given in writing to the judge, who would confer with the attorneys and decide if they were permissible. If so, the judge would read them to the witness. The lawyers could then ask follow-up questions.

The change held out the promise of making things better for the jurors—who, after all, make the greatest sacrifices but often get the least consideration. Letting them ask questions is a way of sustaining their interest and maximizing their comprehension. Denying them the option, by contrast, is an invitation to passivity and boredom.

Still, jurors exist for the benefit of the trial system, not the other way around. So the value of this innovation rests on whether it improves the processes of justice.

On that point, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly has a strong opinion. "When I was in private practice, I was against it," he says. The initial reaction among lawyers is negative, in his view, because "you like to do things the way you've always done them." But his experience as a judge, he says, "has been completely positive. I intend to use it in every civil case that I have."

The benefit for jurors, he thinks, is that it lets them clarify points they didn't understand. But it also helps attorneys: "It gives them an insight into the jury that they wouldn't get." They can then tweak their presentations to address points they may have overlooked. It's a bit like letting theater directors have a glimpse of the reviews before the show opens.

Lawyers are paid to disagree with each other, but here, they have trouble rising to the challenge. A survey of participants in the 7th Circuit program found that two-thirds of attorneys said the practice improved jurors' understanding; 48 percent said it enhanced fairness, with only 8 percent disagreeing.

Half of the lawyers said it increased their own satisfaction with the trial, with only 17 percent dissatisfied. Among losing lawyers, for some reason, the level of approval was even higher. Judges were especially enthusiastic, with 94 percent concluding that the change helped jurors make sense of the issues before them.

Better understanding will yield more informed deliberations, which in turn should produce sounder verdicts. In daily life, we all know that if you want to arrive at the truth, you need to ask some questions along the way. Among all the purposes of a trial, establishing the truth is not the least important.

COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Comments

Angry Lawyer|4.13.09 @ 7:16AM|#

Poppycock! Well, I never. Harumph, harumph!

Fist of Etiquette|4.13.09 @ 7:33AM|#

I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it.

Just Saying|4.13.09 @ 7:55AM|#

It was the big-haired girl, wasn't it.

Ill-Tempered Sea Bass|4.13.09 @ 8:25AM|#

The military justice system has always allowed court members to ask questions. Most practitioners like it when members ask questions because it allows insight into issues the members are concerned about.

|4.13.09 @ 8:55AM|#

Sea bass beat me to the observation about the military justice system. There is really no reason not to let jurors ask questions other than the conceit that only lawyers and judge can ask intelligent questions.

Barry Loberfeld|4.13.09 @ 9:09AM|#

Published December 1999 in Liberty

"A Government of Laws and Not of Men"

The Verdict on Jury Nullification

by Barry Loberfeld

In the beginning of the '90s, a new and intriguing enthusiasm grabbed hold of many within the libertarian movement. This passion was for an idea since promoted as a bold strategy for bringing our country closer to the ideal of a free society. And although its claims have been deflated many times over, support for it continues to rise. That strategy? Jury nullification.
The term stands for the idea that criminal juries have a right to judge the law as well as the defendant. Good juries will nullify bad laws. Presumably, the scenario would go as follows: A libertarian attorney assumes the defense of an accused drug dealer. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the defendant did indeed violate the statute. Fortunately, our freedom-loving lawyer delivers an eloquent speech enumerating the standard libertarian arguments against drug criminalization. Struck by his irresistible logic, the jury uses its new-found power to declare the statute null and void ... by returning a verdict of "not guilty." This develops into a pattern, which soon leads to a de facto state of drug legalization in all fifty states. Eventually, the precedent extends to all victimless crimes. A new liberty is born.
But as near as I can figure, what we have here is a course of human events in which the rule of law is usurped by a rule of lawless juries -- i.e., of men above the law. In this Brave New World of crime and punishment, jurors are no longer charged with the responsibility of determining only whether the accused actually broke the law -- "guilty" or "not guilty." Now, it is theirs to decide -- by God knows what standard -- whether the law should apply to the case before them. Yes, some juries might nullify drug laws; others, however, will not. What, then, is the law of the land? Even the most conscientious of citizens will never know ... until the verdict is announced.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

anarch|4.13.09 @ 10:21AM|#

IANAL, so I ask: Aren't lawyers required to restrict their questions of witnesses to within certain limits, and penalized if they (at least repeatedly) transgress? And wouldn't the limits of admissible questions be too complicated to demand of a lay-jury, and how would a juror be sanctioned for transgressing, whether intentionally or not?

My thought is about questions prejudicial to the proceedings, those that would be thought to pollute the jury even to hear them, even if the witnesses or witness's counsel keeps the question unanswered.

When I served as a juror, whole juries were dismissed just because some juror answered a voir-dire question the wrong way.

Just wondering how the court views this.

|4.13.09 @ 10:30AM|#

@anarch:

That's why the systems usually have the juries submit written questions to the judges, rather than just having them shout them out. Then, if the question's objectionable, the judge can deal with it without polluting the rest of the jury. So if a juror wants to ask an inadmissible question, the judge just shuts him down and explains to him (possibly in private) why the question wasn't allowed. Simple enough.

anarch|4.13.09 @ 10:42AM|#

Thanks, Brian.

Only remaining hitch I see with that situation is when not the judge, but one of the lawyers, finds a question objectionable.

I've been empaneled in cases where the dispute about the consequences of what a juror said resulted in all the jurors being dismissed from the room until the lawyers and judge had hashed out the admissibility of what was said - and then we were all told we'd been polluted and sent away, and that they'd start with a new pool.

Again, just wondering how the boundaries of the new system would mesh with the boundaries of the old system.

anarch|4.13.09 @ 10:43AM|#

To anticipate: Yes, if all the lawyers/parties to the dispute as well as the judge reviewed the written questions, that problem too would be solved.

Justen|4.13.09 @ 10:55AM|#

Wow, I was just contemplating this idea a few days ago. I had no idea it had already been put into practice anywhere. As a former law student (no, didn't complete my degree) the problem of sophism and courtroom theatrics was always a concern to me, as it seemed to undermine the facts of the case and left the outcome more to chance and quality of performance. This seems like a fair check against it. In any case I'm glad people are thinking on the subject and willing to try new things, even in a setting as entrenched and formalized as the justice system.

Shuttergeek|4.13.09 @ 12:00PM|#

@anarch

From the article:

Questions had to be given in writing to the judge, who would confer with the attorneys and decide if they were permissible. If so, the judge would read them to the witness.

So yes, the questions are reviewed by the judge and lawyers.

anarch|4.13.09 @ 4:04PM|#

I've always held that to RTFA is cheating.

anarch|4.13.09 @ 4:05PM|#

Which is to say, thank you for your forbearance.

steven s. smith|4.13.09 @ 6:45PM|#

Nullification (whatever its merits may be) is an impossible pipe-dream in today's system. Jurors asking questions is only possible if the entire judicial community at large (through the ABA, etc) supports it. Not likely any time soon. It could even raise more issues than it solves with regard to our adversarial system v. the inquisitorial. Could end up being worse off in the long run if it is decided that "hey - why use juries at all? We have one guy (or gal) (the judge) who can ask all the questions he wants at any time." Careful what you wish for is all...

|4.14.09 @ 2:19AM|#

"With its formal rituals and solemn atmosphere, the trial system often gives the impression that it didn't evolve like other human institutions, but was handed down from heaven in unalterable form. "

The quasi-religious hooblah-hoo in which the 'justice' system cloaks itself is similar to the cape and top hat of the conjurer. What means other than faux-gravitas would enable social acceptance of the routine violation the inalienable rights of those unfortunates who appear before them?

The Pope wears a gold hat and a silly frock, and for the same reason Antonin Scalia and his band of state-appointed state-enablers wear black dresses: if everyone wore jeans and a t-shirt, then the people would weigh their utterances without being influence by the attendant theater... and the veil would fall.

The 'law' for the most part is nothing but the whim of the tyrant, and when one can be deprived of liberty for a victimless crime then one lives in a tyranny.

Which among you asserts the right for people to form gangs and steal from the rest? [Answer: - anybody who thinks "majority rule" is legitimate]

Caedite Eos.

GT

Jake Witmer|4.14.09 @ 7:03AM|#

Good heavens, what ignorant comments to follow such an intelligent article! I am sorry, but if this is the libertarian movement, we are all utterly screwed! Utterly. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

That Barry Loberfeld's commentary could be taken seriously in a "libertarian" publication is sickening! His entire argument indicates just how jejune and backwards the libertarian movement is. ...The libertarian movement is a kid with a cork popgun in a tire innertube approaching an aircraft carrier.

I'm not going to address any of the other comments below the article. The only ones of any intellect or proper direction are the ones that agree with the practice of jury nullification of law, and jurors being allowed their rights under the Bill of Rights (being allowed to ask questions --file under "freedom of speech" in the one place it matters most -the courtroom).

That there is any controversy to this at all, among "libertarians" is unconscienable to me.

"Voir dire" clearly needs to be done away with. It is pretrial jury rigging in favor of blind obedience to the state's arguments and laws. (The defense can't eliminate a juror because they agree with the law. Duhh.) Anyone who can't understand this knows nothing about anything. Read "Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad. Voir dire arose as a way to prevent Northern juries from nullifying the fugitive slave law. An argument for "Voir dire" is an argument for slavery.

So an argument in favor of jury nullification can't proceed forward without addressing that destruction of 'random' jury selection.

Jury nullification of law is the one single "check" that exists on government power. Nothing that Barry Loberfeld wrote is even relevant to the discussion. Since I assert that, I guess I'll dismantle his BS argument after this. (His argument is like an abolitionist arguing against allowing Frederick Douglass to speak at abolitionist events. Unbelievable! It's like a gun rights activist publicly pointing a loaded gun at his eyeball to see if the barrell is obstructed, in a room full of gun-safety newbies. Paging Lee Paige! Jeez!)


The verdict on Barry Loberfeld:

by Jake Witmer:

Barry: "In the beginning of the '90s, a new and intriguing enthusiasm grabbed hold of many within the libertarian movement. This passion was for an idea since promoted as a bold strategy for bringing our country closer to the ideal of a free society. And although its claims have been deflated many times over,"
Jake: Yeah, like _never_. ...What pompous bloviating!

Barry: support for it continues to rise.
Jake: As it will, if we ever want an inch of respite from our public masters. ..Silly peasants!

Barry: That strategy? Jury nullification.
Jake: Jury nullification isn't a strategy in itself. It is a powerful, essential right that defines "common law" jury trial and therefore 6th amendment rights to due process. Exploited in the hands of libertarian strategists, it is a tactic for doing many things: to name a few: 1) calling injustice to bad laws 2) calling attention to the violation of constitutional jury rights 3) calling attention to the idea of decentralization 4) accessing the media 5) preventing the punishment of an innocent person 6) recruiting sympathizers (with the defendant) to libertarianism 7) aggravation of the forces of tyranny (statist judges, cops, prosecutors, attorneys general, other bacteria) 8) I could go on, but why repeat the great work of those who are more polite than myself?

Barry:The term stands for the idea that criminal juries have a right to judge the law as well as the defendant.
Jake: As they actually do. (In addition, it stands for the right to determine if a valid law is being fairly applied. In addition, technically jurors are not "judging the defendant", they are judging his actions and honesty in the context of the presented situation.) This right was upheld as recently as 2000 in the case of "Laura Kriho v. the State of Colorado". In fact, she was a juror who slipped past the "one-way valve that favors bias in favor of unlimited government control, called 'voir dire' and voted "not guilty" in a drug case. The judge attempted to strip her of all her power as a juror, and punish her for her verdict, exercising a naked power grab on behalf of the state. Her conviction was overturned on appeal, but had it not been, there would be NOTHING left of the libertarian movement.

Barry: Good juries will nullify bad laws. Jake: No, dolt. Informed juries will have one random member who is of a higher caliber and standard than the other people who are mostly dolts. That juror will convince the other dolts to not convict, thus being a one-way valve towards individual freedom. As in the case that Free State Project member Jeremy Couch sat on, where he convinced the jury of remaining prosecution-hand-picked "yes, your honor" bobbleheads to nullify the terrible railroading of an Indiana farmer for "driving without a license".

Barry: Presumably, the scenario would go as follows: A libertarian attorney assumes the defense of an accused drug dealer.
Jake: Or any attorney (even one who is not a libertarian, but simply that rare one that dies his job in spite of the threats to yank his license / "BAR membership"). Jurors are not mindlessly controlled by lawyers' arguments. They have minds of their own. (Unless the prosecution has done a great job of rigging the jury during "voir dire")

Barry: The preponderance of evidence indicates that the defendant did indeed violate the statute. Fortunately, our freedom-loving lawyer delivers an eloquent speech enumerating the standard libertarian arguments against drug criminalization.
Jake: Totally irrelevant to your argument. Pointless blather indicitive of your lack of intellectual depth. The jurors would likely be personally opposed to violating innocent people's right upon entering the courthouse, although jury rights activism is now necessary to reinstate jury rights since there is now a procedural bias against seating proper juries (voir dire, judicial instruction, etc...).

Barry: Struck by his irresistible logic, the jury uses its new-found power to declare the statute null and void
Jake: New found??!!?!! ...Where do I begin? It's almost impossible to critique all the errors Barry is making since there are several in each sentence. I'll just stick with the phrase "new-found power" here. Yeah, I guess the power of jury nullification of law would be "new-found" if it wasn't the jury's primary reason for existing since the 760 A.D. Greek Poleis. Duhhrrrr.

Barry: ... by returning a verdict of "not guilty." This develops into a pattern, which soon leads to a de facto state of drug legalization in all fifty states.
Jake: That would only be one tiny goal of reinstating proper "common law" jury trial, as per historical precedent. Universally, proper trials would result in a more libertarian society in millions of ways, closer to the market of ideas. Tyranny depends on ignorance, and juries insert knowledge and a lack of big-government-bias into the trial. Jurors are the only people in any courtroom who are not career politicians, other than the defendant and witnesses. Simple logic indicates that if there is freedom of speech, it will find its way into the jury's hands, on any subject. That juries should be able to be "instructed" (as in "Sparf and Hansen v the USA"(1895)), or that "contempt of court" charges should be able to be thrown about by the judge, or that attorneys should be licensed, or that "motions in limine" (prosecutorial gag orders on certain kinds of knowledge) are all insane levels of tyranny that have inserted themselves into the American "justice" system. That anyone purporting to be remotely libertarian defends any of this, even idly, is like a black man defending chattel slavery.

In addition, why would it necessarily work in all 50 states? Presumably tyranny wins in at least a few states, and prevents jury rights in some way. The assumption of the over-success of jury rights makes it into a straw man that is easy enough for your pathetically simplistic argument to tear down.

Barry: Eventually, the precedent extends to all victimless crimes. A new liberty is born.
Jake: You got it, ace! ...Now we libertarians have to do a lot of work, because we have to roll back the existing usurpations of proper jury trial power that have gutted jury trial and left it in the barely recognizable form it currently holds. Work that's made even more difficult when people supposedly on "our side" don't comprehend the very basics that people like John Lilburne fought for (and were imprisoned and tortured for defending).

Barry: But as near as I can figure, what we have here is a course of human events in which the rule of law is usurped by a rule of lawless juries -- i.e., of men above the law.
Jake: "Near as you can figure is right." I tell you what Barry, you're not so good at figuring. You need to go to
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
http://www.fija.org and read everything at all those pages. When you're done, you can talk about jury nullification of law. Until then, you're one more "King George III" arguing that "We the People" shouldn't be allowed any rights at all! (I guess you're not familiar with the John Peter Zenger Trial, or the Trial of William Penn, are you? How could you be, and hold your opinion?)

Barry: In this Brave New World of crime and punishment, jurors are no longer charged with the responsibility of determining only whether the accused actually broke the law -- "guilty" or "not guilty." Now, it is theirs to decide --
Jake: yes, continue. The "Brave New World" comparison is asinine, but continue.

Barry: by God knows what standard
Jake: By any personal standard of reason that is not primarily motivated by a government paycheck. Even if it were only that specific, that would be better than the alternative. That's all that really needs to be said. If you don't understand "incentive vs. disincentive" better than that, you are hopelessly screwed.

Barry: -- whether the law should apply to the case before them. Yes, some juries might nullify drug laws; others, however, will not.
Jake: As opposed to now, where juries are instructed, misled, lied to, threatened, cajoled, bamboozled, to get them to vote guilty, --as the judge and prosecution clearly wish them to do-- and many times they apologize to the defendant after the trial is over when they realize what their full power was? (as in the recent case of "Max Hardcore v. Florida" where confused jurors asked "what about the first amendment?" --and were lied to by the judge--) Or as opposed to now, when libertarian jurors are removed from the jury, biasing it hopelessly in favor of mindlessly rubber stamping the enforcement of evil laws? Duhhrrr...

Barry: What, then, is the law of the land?
Jake: The law of the land is SHIT. A meaningless excuse for tyranny. Mountains of Federal Statutes that directly contradict the Bill of Rights. The Constitution itself was tyrannical, and opposed by the libertarians of the day who called themselves "Anti-Federalists". Still, it is a vastly more libertarian document than any of today's laws.

...And, to the extent that it is libertarian, the Constitution is pretty much ignored. Read "The Constitution of No Authority" and get back to me. It's free right here: http://www.lysanderspooner.org --There is no excuse for why you haven't read this. Moreover, "An Essay on Trial by Jury" is free at the same site. Obviously, you also need to read that.

Now then, any of the laws of the land that are being implemented in juryless courts of today are all technically null and void. Just google Marc Stevens video speech "Delusions", for the fast track to a constructive philosophy.

Barry: Even the most conscientious of citizens will never know ... until the verdict is announced.
Jake: Untrue. Irrelevant even if it was true, but untrue. Let me walk you through it:
1) The founders knew that there would be an orgy of lawmaking from the legislators. The more conscientious founders wanted to limit the tyranny of lawmaking. So they created the jury as the 4th branch of government (explicitly or not). Juries had already existed, and had largely worked to limit state power, so they were simply continued (not created for the first time). Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." The jury would be comprised of the people, and would be able to veto any law. This deep concept of checking the exercise of force by allowing a veto from randomly selected "We the People", and applying the reason of 12 independent votes means that that punishment which is rational will be the only punishment likely to be widely embraced. ...Such that 8.3% of the jury will not protest it. (If 8.3% does protest the decision, there can be a "mistrial" declared, and the prosecution can --to some extent-- appeal the case at cost to the state, which there is then a feedback check from the voter/taxpayer in judicial retention. ie: taxpayers won't retain a judge that repeatedly prosecutes victimless crime hung juries, wasting their "law and order" money. --This is what helped end prohibition. Systemic breakdown caused by easy to pinpoint tyranny.)
2) So everyone knows what the laws are (at least the ones that are published, which they apparently no longer need to do, after "Gilmore v. Gonzalez" See: http://www.papersplease.org ), but they also know that "We the People" may de-prioritize those laws, by refusing to enforce them, when REASON dictates that we do so. Very logical: inserts a check on tyranny into the punishing process itself. The idea of adding a third check to government power was discussed in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein, by the creation of a "legislature of repeal" whose job it would be to repeal laws at a certain rate, or with a certain vote, less than that required by the other 2 houses to create them. (ie: more obstacles to the creation of laws than to their repeal. If 1/10 of a representative legislature want to repeal a law it probably can't be a very good law, even if it is otherwise widely agreed to.)
3) Jury check of governmental power IS THE LAW. So how then, could the people "not know what the law is"? They know that the law might not be applied, which is USUALLY a very good thing. The more unjust the law, the more likely its failure to be applied by a randomly-selected jury. Jury Nullification of Law is the fundamental reason why juries exist. It's also the only way that the people could conceivably occupy a position of superior power to the other branches of government.
4) "Jury of one's peers" creates a lot of confusion. They don't have to have also studied architecture to be "your peers". They are your peers in so far as the law applies equally to you as it does to them. They are your "legal equals" or "peers under the law". That's all. --But a cop or a judge is held to a different theoretical standard.
(I say theoretical because the government is illegitimate, and the courts have held that it is not obligated to actually do its job of "protecting you". If it were, then they would not be your peers. Of course, either way they're not your peers, but in reality, they're not only not your peers, I suppose they are your natural enemies / parasites.)
5) So let's say that we don't know if the law is going to be applied or not? (We do know what the laws are though, which would only not be the case if the jury could spontaneously create and enforce the law, which it can't) So what? Are we all going to live in angst that we the state might try to tyrannize us and then fail at that task? Or that they might not have a good enough punishment for a rapist and that that rapist might then go free? Such a "flawed" system would be no worse than the one we have.

That's my "verdict on Barry Loberfeld".

Next, someone will suggest that "the Second Amendment isn't all it's cracked up to be", or ask "Why do we need a 4th amendment if we're not doing anything wrong!" ...Because laws are imprecise, and the actual occasions where force is called for are few and far between. ...All the better that most of them not be enforced on a regular basis.

This is depressing.

...Libertarians, my ass. What are there, like 50 of us? Are the other "40,000" (this number is admittedly a figment of Scott Kohlhaas's imagination) just people who occasionally get bored with the Jackass and Elephant mascots?

In short, Jury Nullification of Law is the only reason Barry Loberfeld has any freedom at all. It has a silly name (Jury Rights activists, and Jury Veto Advocates are trying to change that), and contains some concepts that are a little complex, and require an understanding of emergent order. But to argue that jury nullification of law is not a/(the?) remaining cornerstone of American freedom is patently absurd.

As a little test, let's see how severely and seriously the enemies of freedom fight jury rights activists: In Alaska, Frank Turney regularly handed out FIJA Activism Pamphlets to incoming jurors.

He was charged with an Alaska Statute that forbids "jury tampering" (forbids handing out true information to random members of the general public who may or may not be prospective jurors). He was found guilty by a prosecution-hand-picked jury. He went to jail for 160 days and had to perform over 100 hours of soul-killing community service.

He failed to back down and heed their threats, and is now back out in front of the courthouse. Sarah Palin just signed FIJA's jury rights proclamation, and could possibly be pressured into vacating Turney's conviction.

Turney, in the mosquitos / cold (depending on the time of year), all alone, up in Alaska is fighting for the core of individual freedom.

He is standing against the full weight of unconstitutional restrictions of free speech.

The judges in Fairbanks hate him. The prosecutors hate him. He is making a difference, and he is one old guy who is also a radical and outspoken advocate of marijuana legalization.

In my own travels, I have noticed it usually takes about 5-20 minutes for the judge inside of any courthouse to send out a cop to try to tyrannize me and get me to back down from handing out FIJA literature. Sometimes, it takes longer, but usually not if jurors are entering.

(I have also found better ways to hand out the literature, like going into court, and sitting in the pews until lunch recess, and then striking up conversations about the injustice that is transpiring. Often, I can encourage a person to opt for jury trial, sometimes to self-represent.)

But if you're outside, attracting attention,
the cop will come outside and tell you that the judge has told him "you can't be doing this in front of 'his' courthouse". If you stand your ground, the cop may or may nor arrest you. If they arrest you, they likely won't charge you with anything. (Just a nice little way for them to say "fuck you").

It's usually all a bluff. (Unless you're Frank Turney, then you're out there so often you've actually started interfering with their tyranny. LOL.)

When I demanded a jury trial at my last court appearance, I made it clear I was going to argue the 2nd tenet of jury nullification, that "the law was not being fairly applied". The prosecutor tried to pressure me into pleading guilty and paying a $15 ticket, so she could save face. (I could pay a $15 ticket, and no 'points', no record of the ticket on my driving record, or face 6 months in jail for "driving without a license"). I declined, and told her "I don't think the jury will sympathize with your nasty strong arm tactics".

This was in IL, where they grant you a jury trial in the whole state, or in some counties for traffic offsenses (I really don't know). In Indiana, they don't allow jury trials for traffic offenses. They simply pronounced me guilty and I paid a $100 ticket.

Those who proclaim to be libertarians and argue against jury rights are totally and completely demented, and should be regarded as a doctor showing up to perform a surgery without gloves, while sporting oozing syphilitic chancres all over his hands.

...With horror, that is.

Two quotes from Thoreau are relevant here:
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " So whom would you obey in a court of "laws"? (As if that wasn't also a court of "men") The prosecutor, cop, or judge's interpretation of the law? And how do they interpret the "highest law of the land"? (as part of "Marbury v. Madison" argues that all laws that are unconstitutional are "null and void") The answers to those questions reveal that "the only chance for justice is the jury". (I was thrown out of the Indiana courthouse for saying that, after laughing at the judge who said I "could have a 'bench trial'. I said "Oh, a royal proclamation of "guilty" ...is that called a 'trial' these days?")

Here's another gem from Thoreau:
"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law."
At least Thoreau fans who sit on a jury will be likely to nullify.

Although I did find a picture of Thoreau on Loberfeld's website, so maybe I hold too much hope in juror awareness.

...I guess what I'm tryin' to say is: freedom is important enough to make it worth standing in front of a courthouse to preserve.

For every libertarian you convince to outsmart the prosecutor, and get seated, you bring yourself into a direct and meaningful battle with the state, the result of which is freedom for an actual human being.

I'll take that over the uncertain odds of winning an election any day.

(Which begs the question: Are those two goals at odds, or mutually inclusive?)

...You figure it out.

Jake Witmer|4.14.09 @ 7:22AM|#

Correction: Ilo Jones points out that the juries of the Greek Polis (750 BC, not AD -my bad) not only were allowed to question the other actors in a trial, they were allowed to go out to the crime scene, examine evidence on the spot, and investigate the crime themselves.

http://www.videojug.com/interview/jury-history-2#what-was-the-first-trial-by-jury

Now, the judge treats them as if he is an authority "over them". LOL. He says such shite as "Can you all agree to take the law as I give it to you?"

He might as well ask: "Will you all please disrobe and assume the position?"

Such is the sham of modern "jury(hand-picked by the prosecution) trials".

|4.14.09 @ 9:28AM|#

Jake Witmer
Jury Nullification has one huge flaw.
If I kill a AIG executive and a Liberal jury finds me not guilty, does that make it right?
If the answer is no then you should really look at other methods like returning the powers to the states and following the Constitution

|4.14.09 @ 10:40PM|#

The legal system which Britain imposed on its colonies does nto try to find the truth; it has 21 (at least) devices which hide the truth from jurors.

The function of a trial is to make money for the trial lawyers who control the evidence, and hence the process and ehcne the money.