Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

With material supplied by Fully Informed Jury Association

Are you as amazed and appalled at the outrageous verdicts our court system regularly delivers as I am? Every lawyer I've ever talked to has repeated that any trial is a "crap shoot" regardless of the facts and evidence - you can be absolutely right and still lose your case. I've recently seen and read a number of interviews of jurors in controversial cases complaining that they wanted to return a different verdict - sometimes exactly opposite the verdict they actually returned.

The jurors in the interviews expressed a great deal of frustration and even outrage that they hadn't been able to address the questions they truly believed were on trial. They stated that they were instead specifically instructed by the judge to rule only on the very narrow question of compliance with the technicalities of the law as interpreted by the judge. Judges had even threatened jurors with legal sanctions if they addressed anything outside of his specific instructions. How could it happen that a juror would feel compelled to return an official verdict diametrically opposite to his true opinion?

"It is not only [the trial juror's] 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."
John Adams, 1771

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Thomas Jefferson, 1789

jury, n. [Fr. jure', sworn, L. juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empanneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand Juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alledged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.
Noah Webster's original dictionary, 1828

Few history books give juries the credit they're due for ending some of the worst legal abuses in American history. By refusing to convict under laws they thought were wrong, juries stopped the Salem witch trials, overturned slavery in state after state before the Civil War, and ended Prohibition.

As incredible as it may seem, Judges today are incarcerating people for informing jury members of their constitutionally mandated power and responsibility. Unable to rewrite the constitution directly, Judges have openly conspired to deny jury members their rights and powers by suppressing knowledge of those rights and powers.

It all started in 1670 when William Penn was arrested in London for preaching a Quaker sermon, breaking a law that made the Church of England the only legal church. His jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to convict him, despite being held for days without food, water, tobacco, or toilet facilities - and then being fined. The most defiant four of them were put in prison for nine weeks.

The highest court of England, upon releasing the defiant jurors, both acknowledged and established that trial jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Recognition of our freedoms of religion, peaceable assembly and speech can thus all be traced to the exercise of jury power, wielded by juries unintimidated by government judges.

The Founding Fathers of America realized that the temptations of power and corruption would eventually prove to be too much for any of the three branches of our government to resist, let alone provide the required check and balance the other branches. They knew that government "of, by and for the people" meant that in order to protect themselves from tyranny, the people would regularly have exercise their authority to act as the final check and balance on the whole system. Since law is the main tool by which a government exerts its control, trusting juries of ordinary citizens to veto the use of bad law was the logical choice.

According to the Yale Law Review in 1964, "The right of the jury to decide question of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge's instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles. There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted."

However, in the next century, judges began chipping away at this fundamental and vital right of free citizens, thereby transferring citizen power to themselves. The biggest usurpation took place in 1895, when in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., a bitterly split decision by the Supreme Court held that failure of the judge to remind the jurors of their powers was not a basis for mistrial or appeal. This was the green light for judges to go mum on the topic, and they did.

Trial judges now falsely tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" the jury has been allowed to see are sufficient to convict. And if the narrow technicalities are met, they "should" or "must" find the defendant guilty or liable. Defense attorneys are threatened with contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if the jurors think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. Prosecutors and judges try to exclude people from serving on juries who admit knowing they can judge the law, or have doubts about the justice of the law. Freedom minded citizens distributing information about jury rights and power without any reference to specific cases, outside courthouses have been prosecuted for "jury tampering".

The popular media and the "legal profession" would have us believe that 9 political appointees in black robes are the supreme "law of the land". As a direct result of the conspiracy to deceive the citizenry who make up juries as to their rights to reject bad laws, we have a justice system that has lost all concept of justice, a Supreme Court more interested in social engineering than accurately interpreting our clearly written Constitution and Bill of Rights, and an accelerating assault on our remaining civil and human rights.

It turns out there are already people trying to make a change in the current appalling situation - and suffering legal harassment for their efforts. I don't actually know anything about this organization outside of seeing a couple of their newsletters, but I do admit to liking the sound of a group of people taking a stand - and taking the heat - to defend my liberties without my having to "put it on the line" personally. If you're interested you might consider contacting:

Fully Informed Jury Association
PO Box 59
Helmville, MT 59843