Our Best Weapon Against State Tyranny.

From the left-wing website Truth-Out, we read this:

Did you know that, no matter the evidence, if a jury feels a law is unjust, it is permitted to “nullify” the law rather than finding someone guilty? Basically, jury nullification is a jury’s way of saying, “By the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty, but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.” Ultimately, the verdict serves as an acquittal.

Haven’t heard of jury nullification? Don’t feel bad; you’re far from alone. If anything, your unfamiliarity is by design. Generally, defense lawyers are not allowed to even mention jury nullification as a possibility during a trial because judges prefer juries to follow the general protocols rather than delivering independent verdicts.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has routinely agreed that judges have no obligation to inform juries about jury nullification. Paradoxically, jury nullification is permitted to exist as an option to all juries, yet this option cannot be discussed in most courtrooms.

Jury nullification is undoubtedly feared because of its ability to upset the system. A jury that considers drug laws to be outrageous can nullify. A jury that is aware of the mass inequality in incarceration rates and believes a defendant was targeted via racial profiling can nullify. A jury that believes a harmless defendant is a victim of the prison industrial complex rather than a perpetrator can nullify. This counter-verdict exists so that citizens can right the wrongs inherent in our supposed “justice” system.

Jury Nullification is the greatest institutional defense we have today against the tyranny of the administrative state. It truly is a middle-finger to bureaucrats and politicians from a jury in favor of liberty: “Yeah, they broke your laws – but we say ‘Not Guilty’ anyway. Now go jump off a cliff.”

This is completely legal; our entire justice system would be 100% fraudulent if it weren’t. The trial-by-jury system is good for individuals purely because the jury is completely sovereign in it’s decision. No law can restrict what verdict a jury will give – to do so would undermine the whole idea. If they say “Not Guilty”, then you’re not guilty no matter how upset this makes the State Prosecutors.

The only exceptions are in cases of coercion or bribery. If it can be proven that a juror was coerced or bribed into giving a verdict, they can be charged with a crime and a verdict can be overturned. But this must be proven.

Judges and prosecutors, of course, hate jury nullification. They like convictions. The State wants to be able to collect money from people in judgements, or punish people who anger the State politically as a display of power. Judges and lawyers are famous for ferreting out potential jurors who might attempt to use nullification. I know a guy who once reported for jury selection and was asked this question by the judge: “Do you believe that a jury decides on the validity of the law?” If the guy had said yes, this would’ve shown he was in favor of nullification as an option to jurors – and the judge would’ve gotten him thrown out. He instead replied “No” – although he wasn’t selected anyway. But it was for other reasons than him having been identified as a potential nullifier.

I find it rather ironic that the website Truth-Out, a self-avowed Left-Progressive publication, has an article in support of this. Notice in the segment above that the only cases they describe are drug offenses and racial profiling. I have a strong feeling that Truth-Out would not be so open to nullification in the case of – for example – a Christian baker who does not want to bake a homosexual wedding cake but is found “Not Guilty” by way of nullification. A legal move like jury nullification is basically opposed to all that Progressivism stands for, which is a hardcore liberal theocracy that can manipulate people at will. Nullification is our best legal defense against progressive politicians and bureaucrats who simply “know what’s best for you” and are determined to give it to you good and hard.

For instance, I doubt Truth-Out would approve of this recent instance of nullification and victory for free speech:

A jury in Anne Arundel County MD circuit court has found Dennis Fusaro, a libertarian activist, and Steve Waters not guilty in a case brought by the state of Maryland.

This appears to be a case of heroic jury nullification and a victory for free and anonymous speech against government harassment.

The charges against Fusaro and Waters stemmed from a 2014 robocall that went to about 5,000 conservative Anne Arundel County, Maryland residents the weekend before the 2014 election, “congratulating” Democratic County Council candidate Patrick Armstrong “for his bravery in coming out of the closet” and linking him to a controversial measure that banned discrimination against transgender people in public areas, including restrooms.

Fusaro worked for the campaign of Armstrong’s opposition Michael Anthony Peroutka, Peroutka was elected to the Council but has denied any knowledge of the call.

The recording gave the home phone number of Armstrong’s mother and invited residents to call about Armstrong’s support of “the bathroom bill.”

Maryland state prosecutors said the call lacked the appropriate identification and came from what they described as “an untraceable” prepaid cell phone which they traced to a purchase with cash by Waters and Fusaro at Walmart in Fredericksburg, Va.

“The call in question failed to identify Fusaro and Waters as the persons responsible for the call, and failed to state whether it was authorized by any candidate,” prosecutors said in a statement. “Instead, the call falsely stated that it was ‘Paid for and authorized by Marylanders for Transgenders'” the statement said, adding that prosecutors believe the pair bought burner phones “in an effort to conceal their identities as the persons authorizing and paying for the call.”

Fusaro and Waters were both charged with two counts — violating and conspiring to violate the authority line requirements of Maryland election laws. They were found not on all counts.

Since the facts of the case seem pretty clear, this verdict by the Maryland jury appears to be a case of jury nullification and a slap at the oppressive electoral speech regulations of the state.

In a statement to Target Liberty, Fusaro said:

“Hiding their ideological agenda behind prosecutorial discretion, prosecutor Elmo Davitt and his merry band of speech-suppressing agents, pick and choose who will be punished all with an eye to enforcing an acceptable range of discussion about controversial public policy issues in Maryland.The Office of the Maryland Special Prosecutor decides which procedural mistakes are hammered and which are not. That gives them substative message control by using their procedural power.

Taxpayers in Maryland who are concerned with their first amendment rights should rise up and have that office shut down by petitioning their legislature for redress of grievances.”

Jury Nullification – learn to love it. All people who value individual liberty of the little guy against the tyranny should know about nullification and be prepared to deploy it, if suitable for a court case. Just don’t let the judge or prosecutors know that you’re aware of the option.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: