The Rights of
Jurors - 'Jury Nullification' ............[www.ccguide.org.uk/jury.html]
Jurors have the legal right and legal
duty to judge whether or not the law itself is fair.
That is the primary reason why they
judge whether or not someone is guilty, not the judge.
The jury decides if someone is guilty of doing
anything wrong, not anything illegal.
If the jury decides that the defendant has broken the
law but done nothing wrong it is called 'jury
nullification' - the jury has nullified the law.
The British Justice System was once
revered at home and respected abroad as embodying the
finest and most democratic form of law enforcement
ever devise by mankind. This historic worldwide
example was the direct result of Constitutional Law,
Magna Carta, The Great Charter of English Liberties,
first passed in 1215. By Act of Union, Magna Carta is
law throughout Britain, and has been ratified over
thirty times, including by our current monarch, Queen
Elizabeth II, and applies as much today as ever. This
unique law institutes the juror's right and duty, in
trial by jury, to acquit as innocent according to the
juror's conscience all citizens tried under laws
which the juror judges to be bad, oppressive or
unfair.
That is to say, the juror decides the
verdict not simply on whether the facts and evidence
indicate the defendant broke the law. In addition,
the Juror has the right and duty to decide the
verdict by also making a judgment on whether the law
under which the defendant is being tried, is itself
just. This is the special virtue of Magna Carta: it
is emplaced to protect citizens for all time, from
tyrannical injustice by government.
Why is the Juror's
judgment on the law so important a part of Trial by
Jury?
The following are quotations from the
'Report of the FCDA, Europe; Cannabis, the Facts,
Human Rights and the Law' [ISBN: 0-954421-1-6]. The
Report is endorsed by judges, doctors (of Medicine,
Jurisprudence, Psychiatry, etc), Ecology and
Economics' experts, and other academics.
"In the governance of men and
women, few if any, matters are of greater consequence
than the diligence and precision with which the
judiciary observe and adhere to the civilised code
long established for the determination of an accused
person's guilt or innocence. At least the equal of
all other aspects of importance of this code is the
Right and Duty of the jury to judge of the justice of
the law."
"All governments, comprised of as they are of
human beings, are fallible. Governments are capable
of passing bad or oppressive (i.e. illegal) laws, and
authorising and organising the enforcement of such
bad laws. If juries were limited in their role to
decide guilt or innocence only on the evidence
produced by the state prosecutor of whether the
accused had broken a law or not, any jury acting in
this restricted way would not be able to protect good
fellow Citizens from unjust laws or oppressions of
the state. These inadequate 'show trials' are
observed to take place in the tyrannies of
totalitarian dictatorships and are traditionally
scorned for the mockery of justice that they are when
compared to the democratic high standards Trial by
Jury".
"Some term other than Trial by Jury is necessary
to describe a court ritual enacted where in the jury
is not informed of the jurors Right and Duty to judge
on the justice of law, without which real Trial by
Jury cannot be said to have taken place".
The Magna Carta established that no man shall be
punished for violating the King's law except by
the lawful judgement of his peers. Since then
trial by jury has served as the final safeguard
between government and the people. The jury's power
to say 'no' was put to the test in 1670. The trial of
William Penn and William Mead resulted in one of the
most important developments of the common law jury.
During the previous six years English juries often
acquitted Quakers for violating Parliament's command
that all religious services conform to Anglican
ritual. The King's Bench frequently responded to
verdicts for acquittal in such trials by fining
jurors. When the common law juries refused to enforce
the Crown's religious intolerance, London soldiers
locked and guarded the doors of Quaker Church. Penn
and Mead preached in the streets and were arrested.
Although Penn and Mead had clearly broken the law in
both letter and spirit, the jury's right to acquit if
the law is unjust supercedes in authority the Crown,
the state and the court. Chief Justice Vaughan in
reviewing the case re-confirmed the Right of Juries
to judge of the justice of laws, upholding this
principle as one of the essential safeguards of
democracy, which applies for all time, as witnessed
by this Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque:
"Near this site William Penn and William Mead
were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful
assembly in Gracechurch Street.
This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of
the jury, Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others,
who refused to give a verdict against them although
they were locked up without food for two nights and
were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty.
The case of these jury men was reviewed on a writ of
Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the
opinion of the court which established the Rights of
Juries to give their Verdict according to their
conviction".
A recent case in Liverpool is a modern example.
Although admitting to the several acts of supplying
her sick daughter with cannabis, she pleaded not
guilty to charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. She
stated that the supply was medicinal albeit illegal;
and that the supply was not misuse. Having convinced
the jury that her act did not warrant punishment they
found her not guilty. This was after a great deal of
pressure from her solicitor and barrister who wanted
her to plead guilty.
Today, as a citizen serving on a jury, expect the
judge to tell you that you may consider only the
facts and evidence of whether the Defendant broke the
law. The judge might even tell you that you may not
allow your opinion of the law, your conscience, or
the Defendant's motives, to affect your decision.
This is categorically and precisely incorrect
according to the Substantive Laws, including Magna
Carta, which comprise the British constitution. No
government or court may legally deny, revoke or
legislate away the Right of the Jury to find a
verdict by making judgment upon the justice of the
law. The judge normally reminds the jury of their
oath. The oath is that they will reach a verdict on
the evidence alone. Judge, Prosecution and Defence
all fail in their duty by not telling the jury that
they may acquit if they find the law itself to be
unjust. The FCDA
claim it may be a cause for appeal for almost every
trial by jury conviction this century. This is
probably why the wigs do not wish to deal with the
problem.
A person on cannabis charges could plead not guilty
irrespective of the evidence. It would then be up to
his defence to prove the law unjust and tell the jury
of their Right. Most judges specifically ban any
argument on the justification of the law. In that
case there would be grounds to appeal, if you get a
legal representative to take it on. Otherwise the
question is can you convince the jury?
One of the single most telling causes leading to
the Repeal of Prohibition of Alcohol in the U.S. in
1933, was that the state prosecution of individuals
for breaking the Prohibition increasingly failed to
obtain guilty verdicts. Juries nullified prosecution
of what they deemed to be an unjust law, pronouncing
their verdict Not Guilty. In the last four years of
Prohibition of Alcohol, approximately half of all
such trials resulted in acquittal or hung juries
although the defendants invariably had broken the
law, often being apprehended red-handed.
In America there is a body called the Fully
Informed Jury Association. They advocate telling the
juries of their rights, including consideration of
defendant's motives as part of the evidence and their
right ton acquit or convict according to their
conscience.
FULLY INFORMED JURY
ASSOCIATION
More about jury nullification in the UK here.
Confessed cannabis users found 'Not Guilty': www.ccguide.org.uk/no-guilt.html
United States:
Lawyer John Adams, when
Second President, said about jurors "It
is not only his 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" (Source: Yale Law Journal).
"If a juror accepts as
the law that which the judge states then that
juror has accepted the exercise of absolute
authority of a government employee and has
surrendered a power and a right that was once
the citizen's safeguard of liberty".
Elliot's Debates; 94, Bancroft, History of
the Constitution, 267.
Thomas Jefferson, Third
President of the United States 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".
Samuel Chase, US Supreme
Court Chief Justice, 1796, a signatory to the
Declaration of Independence said "The
Jury has the Right to determine both the law
and facts". In this manner good men and
women who stand up against tyranny are of one
mind.
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes said "The Jury has the power to
bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and
fact".
Judge Harlan F.Stone, Chief
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1941-1946
said "The law itself is on trial quite
as much as the case which is to be decided"
and "If the jurors feels that the
statute (law) involved in any criminal
offence is unfair, all that it infringes upon
the defendant's natural God-given unalienable
or Constitutional Rights, then it is his duty
to affirm that the offending statute is
really no law at all and that the violation
of it is no crime at all - for no-one is
found to obey an unjust law".
The D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, in 1972, ruled that the jury has an
"unreviewable and irreversible power to
acquit in disregard of the instruction on the
law given by trial judge. The pages of
history shine upon instances of the jury's
exercise of its prerogative to disregard
instructions of the judge."
U.S. Chief Justice John Jay,
in the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford,
instructed the jury that the relevant facts
having been ascertained, it remained only for
the jury to judge upon the law itself, as
follows: "The jury has the right to
judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy."
