( A Post to Group Lost By ).Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict

[Guest guest]

Dear Group,

 

It seems that domething or someone at is messing up our

messages and group front page.

 

I wrote 2 emails to them and received a stock answer pertaining to,

How to use free email accounts. ????? That wasn't a lot of help.

 

Anyway here is a message that didn't make it to the group as it

should have.

 

F.

 

FROM: jblake

DATE: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:48:22 -0800 (PST)

SUBJECT: Re: Re: Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict

 

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, kair4me <oxyssage wrote:

 

]>What an incredible example showing how the ignorance of

our good God ]>fearing neighbors can be more detrimental to

our well being than the ]>arrogance of manipulating,

deceiving, lying judges and prosecutors - ]>the lawyers -

who don't care about " Justice " - but rather are hell

 

Assuming you are refering to that marijuana california case.

 

a) The jury did not know that the city of aokland

deputized

the individaul to _grow_ marijuana.

 

b) The jury were not told of any medical uses of

marijuana.

c) The prosecution _prohibited_ the victim from making

any

defence.

 

d) _None_ of the juries were aware of " jury

nullification, "

 

Given that, the jury had no option, but to convict the

individual.

 

 

Now I'll spin it around. Had you been on that jury, would

you have

voted for a nullification of the law?

 

If not, why not?

 

If so, what would have done when the judge threw the non-

conviciton

out?

 

]>controlled substances? Back to our " good " neighbors...they become

]>rubber stamps to judicial authorities who lie, cheat, and steal the

]>juries right to decide not only the fact(s) of the case, but also

the

 

Based on the facts that the, _the jury_ was aware of, they

could do nothing but convict the individual.

 

]>juries right to rule on whether the law is just - or not. Most

]>probably never learned in history class the right to a jury trial by

]>a jury of ones peers (that have not been coerced, questioned, and

 

You can bemoan the lack of legal knowledge all you like.

 

It still requires that the jury be told _all_ of the facts

in a case. Something that did not happen.

 

To nullify a law, you have to be able to demonstrate both

why it is a bad law, and why the indiviual is not guilty.

In the california case, the fact that he had what effectively

amounts to a " licence " would suffice for part two. I suspect

his defence would suffice for demosntrating part one.

 

You can't just say " this is a bad law. We hereby revoke it. "

You have to say " This is a bad law for the following reasons:

a) BLAH

b) blah blah

c) blah blah blah blah

etc.

Following up with " and numerous more reasons that will take

too long of the court's time to hear. "

 

xan

 

jonathon