Feedback

Summer,
You are exactly right. The judge refuses to allow you, as a citizen jury member, to know your rights or authority or responsibility.

They want you ignorant because they love the technicality game and the game of splitting hairs endlessly. And they have lost sight of the concept of justice and conscience. Also, they do not see the forest for the trees.

It is easier for them to make a big deal out of a small thing in order to ignore the big issue in the circumstances. So they railroad the process by expecting a majority vote to be made into "unaimous" and put a few lines on the verdict paper for "the disenters" who say the citizen is inocent. Hard to believe.

In my case - they asked the question "Did I so much as stiffen while being handcuffed?" verses the real question, "Did the police department have the authority to force the officers to be there in the first place? Was not the arrest illegal in the first place?" Very frustrating.

Our statutes say that the jurors decide the intent of our law, laws which we passed for ourselves. The statutes say that you, the juror, get to use your conscience. That you get to prevent the law from being used to unnecesarily harm an individual citizen, to prevent our law from being used contrary to common sence, or from being used contrary to the best interst of the general public.

The judge, however, does not tell the juror this information. He does not tell you that you have the option of ignoring any or all of his instructions. He does not tell you that a technicality is no excuse. Much of his instruction steers the results and hog ties the jurors.

If the jurors buy into it, they feel they must ignore justice, common sence, the intent of the law, and their duty to protect individuals from beurocratic abuse of authority, and to allow the mutilation of the meaning of our own laws. And the jurors must also ignore their conscience.

If the jurors find out these rights, do you know what the system calls it? They call it a "nulified" jury. They call it "nullifying the jury". -Nulified-!

Nulified from intimidation, maybe, hu?

We, the people, are the ultimate authority. But the government employees who we hire with our tax money to "serve" us, they want you intimidated and self conscious and filled with doubt, and ignorant of your rights and duties authority.

When you serve on a jury - always vote your conscience, and stick to it, no matter what. And there can always be a re-trial with a different jury. Being out voted does not make a person guilty. It is not a "majority rules" situation. If there is not a unanimous vote, or in some cases an at least 10 out of 12 vote, then the accused person is not guilty.

Vote your conscience, always. Uphold the intent of our laws, even when intimidated by the government employees that we hire.

Andreah