something that needs to be done in all 50 states

The New Hampshire House has passed a bill that would require courts to inform juries of their right to vote “not guilty” when “a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result.”

A coalition of nine representatives, led by Rep. Daniel Itse, introduced House Bill 1270 (HB1270) in January. The legislation would amend current law on jury nullification and require the court to explain that right to the jury upon request of the defense.

State law, RSA 519:23-a, currently reads, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

If passed into law, HB1270 would amend this section to read, in part, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

“It’s an important distinction to require the court to inform the jury instead of having the defense do so,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “When it comes from an ‘official’ source like this, it becomes more likely that a juror will consider this option.”

In a proceeding upon request the defense, the court would be required to inform the jury of their options, guilty, not guilty, and jury nullification. The exact statement from the court would include, “Even if you find the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case, a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-8 that HB1270 “ought to pass.” Today, the full House passed the bill by a vote of 184-145.

JURY NULLIFICATION OVERVIEW

Juries have the power to nullify a law in an individual case by finding the defendant not guilty, even when he clearly violated the law in question. The jury can use its discretion to determine that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional, and refuse to convict.

The New Hampshire case of Doug Darrell demonstrates how jury nullification works in practice. Police arrested Darrell and charged him with felony cultivating marijuana. He claimed he used marijuana for religious and medical purposes. Although he was clearly guilty by the letter of the law, the jury refused to convict.

Thomas Jefferson defended jury nullification, writing that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”

Jury nullification provides a mechanism for the people to invalidate unjust laws. But most jurors don’t realize they have this power and courts rarely inform them of this option. If HB1270 passes, defendants will have the opportunity to ensure they face a fully-informed jury.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...house-passes-jury-nullification-bill-184-145/
 
The New Hampshire House has passed a bill that would require courts to inform juries of their right to vote “not guilty” when “a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result.”

A coalition of nine representatives, led by Rep. Daniel Itse, introduced House Bill 1270 (HB1270) in January. The legislation would amend current law on jury nullification and require the court to explain that right to the jury upon request of the defense.

State law, RSA 519:23-a, currently reads, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

If passed into law, HB1270 would amend this section to read, in part, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

“It’s an important distinction to require the court to inform the jury instead of having the defense do so,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “When it comes from an ‘official’ source like this, it becomes more likely that a juror will consider this option.”

In a proceeding upon request the defense, the court would be required to inform the jury of their options, guilty, not guilty, and jury nullification. The exact statement from the court would include, “Even if you find the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case, a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-8 that HB1270 “ought to pass.” Today, the full House passed the bill by a vote of 184-145.

JURY NULLIFICATION OVERVIEW

Juries have the power to nullify a law in an individual case by finding the defendant not guilty, even when he clearly violated the law in question. The jury can use its discretion to determine that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional, and refuse to convict.

The New Hampshire case of Doug Darrell demonstrates how jury nullification works in practice. Police arrested Darrell and charged him with felony cultivating marijuana. He claimed he used marijuana for religious and medical purposes. Although he was clearly guilty by the letter of the law, the jury refused to convict.

Thomas Jefferson defended jury nullification, writing that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”

Jury nullification provides a mechanism for the people to invalidate unjust laws. But most jurors don’t realize they have this power and courts rarely inform them of this option. If HB1270 passes, defendants will have the opportunity to ensure they face a fully-informed jury.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...house-passes-jury-nullification-bill-184-145/

Unjust result? Too subjective.

Do you support a jury being able to increase the punishment if they believe a guilty verdict producing a certain sentence isn't enough?
 
Unjust result? Too subjective.

Do you support a jury being able to increase the punishment if they believe a guilty verdict producing a certain sentence isn't enough?

just as a jury decides between death and life in a case, they should also be given a wide latitude in sentencing.
 
would you support a jury handing out a lesser sentence than the law allows for?

You've indicated that you believe that. It's why I asked if the other side of things should be done to see if you are consistent or just promoting more anarchy. Seems you don't have the guts to answer.
 
Why waste your time with a freedom hating Authoritarian like CFM?

I can't help it if he won't answer a simple question. You can't either. What you can help is whether or not you support someone that's too cowardly to do so.
 
are you unable to understand what 'wide latitude' means? it means that the jury can either provide a lighter sentence, or a stiffer sentence. if you actually need to see the word yes for you to clearly understand....then the answer would be yes.

simple words for simple minds.
 
First, I should say that I am in favor of informing the Jury of its right of Nullification, and explaining that in detail.

That said, there are obstacles with Jury Nullification in the courtroom that make its use astonishingly rare.

One of those reasons is what this law is trying to tackle: In some courtrooms, the practice of informing a jury about Nullification is actually banned. Jurors don't know they have the right, and they're not told they have it.

The issue then becomes one of stacking the deck for the prosecution, once the potential jurors are aware.

If a juror tells the Court that they are aware of, and are willing to engage in, Jury Nullification if they feel it's justified, they will be either dismissed For Cause or receive a peremptory challenge dismissal. If the bill doesn't include language barring the dismissal of a potential juror for their willingness to engage in Nullification, it's missing some teeth.

The concept of Jury Nullification makes sense. Laws are enacted that step too far into areas where they should not go.

The anti-sodomy laws, for example.

For those who don't know what "sodomy" is, it's not just anal sex among homosexual men. It's anal or oral sex, full stop. If, for example, you're male and you like getting head (pardon the colloquial terminology) from your girlfriend or wife, well, that's sodomy too, friends. Go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect that orgasm you were hoping for.

Now, nobody has been hauled up before a court for sodomy in rather a long time, but there are several states with sodomy laws still on the books. But if someone was brought up on a criminal charge of sodomy for giving or receiving oral sex on a consenting sexual partner, the use of Jury Nullification to acquit someone in a trial over a law that is clearly invasive of the defendant's private activities is certainly appropriate.

The same is true for the use of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana helps ease the pain and suffering of people with cancer and/or who are going through chemotherapy, yet the use of medical marijuana is still Federally illegal and users could face Federal prosecution even though it may be legal in the state in which they reside.

If someone is brought up on Federal possession charges because they are using marijuana for a bona fide medicinal purpose, I would certainly Nullify.

There are many reasons that jury nullification makes sense, and unfortunately our Courts are intent on A) keeping us uniformed of the Nullification option and, B) stacking the deck in a prosecutorial direction as a result.

We need laws like this one.
 
Back
Top