One of the members of the Dissenting Democrat collective is an old Bailey hack, that is to say, a lawyer of sorts past his prime, and another is learned in the law without the encumbrance of bar admission. They have conspired to reveal a secret of the law, and indeed a secret that every judge in the land would exercise every power available to avoid public knowledge. Lawyers have been threatened with contempt citations whenever they appear about to divulge this secret.
It is this: in every case before a jury, the jury is within its rights to render a decision not only on the facts as presented, and upon the law as instructed by the judge but may so conclude that the law itself is perverse and contrary to the fundamental law of the nation. This has the effect of nullifying the law in its verdict. This is called “jury nullification” and although rarely discussed in polite legal circles it is one of the rights inherent in our concept of the due process of law. It is also one of the checks and balances of our constitutional system.
Most judges prefer not to speak of the matter, some will rant and rave that the nullification by the jury is contrary to their judicial authority. But it is settled law.
In 1794, in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford before the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Jay, one of the founding fathers and co-author of the Federalist, wrote,
“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 both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy“.
Judges today don’t want you to know this, especially if there is any possibility that you may serve on a jury. But now you do for we have told you and urge that you consult the case itself at 3 U.S. 1 or the third volume of the United States Reports page 1.
Four States have constitutional provisions acknowledging the jury’s status.
This is true for petty juries (trial juries) and for grand juries (indictment juries).
Judges don’t want you to know because you may just take the law into your own hands and come to a verdict contrary to their wishes. Judges don’t like that. Indeed many judges assert that they should direct the jury as to what their verdicts should be. The Constitution and the fundamental law on which it is based does not agree with the idea of an Imperial Judiciary any more than it does with the idea of an Imperial Presidency.
Recently, Congressman Ron Paul has promoted the constitutional status of the jury as a check on judicial power. Judges don’t like him either but there is little they can do to control a duly elected United States Representative. Fortunately, for the judiciary, the media complies by ignoring Mr. Paul’s commentary on the law and juries.
The Dissenting Democrat occupies a position on the political spectrum quite opposed to Ron Paul but we honor him as a honest man and a keen student of the Constitution. Unlike many of his colleagues on the left and right, Ron Paul actually believes in things. He is a refreshing alternative to the majority of Congress-critters who only believe in money.
So, pssst! Pass it along — JURIES have the right and the duty to decide as to the validity of the law before it as well as the facts alleged.
___________________________________________________________
FFI: See, Fully Informed Jury Association at fija.org
The Dissenting Democrat 