A face of who gets arrested in the US Drug War

[Jason Hyatt]

I would vote 'not guilty' because of the unconstitutionality of the law.

While I agree with the premise, I'm not a fan of jury nullification. If we're talking about Constitutionality, then jury nullification is at least as bad as the law they convicted this poor lady under; perhaps worse. You're asking twelve unelected people to decide which laws are OK with them and which ones aren't -- and really since you only need one "not guilty" you're allowing one unelected individual to decide which laws should or shouldn't be followed. That's not OK in my book. That is pretty far from the system outlined in the Constitution. Juries have a very limited role in the judicial system. The prosecution must prove the defendant violated the law, the defense must ensure the prosecution has done so, and the jury is the finder of fact. A jury's only role is to determine whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the law. The jury's role is not to determine the Constitutionality of a law; that's what the Appeals courts and the Supreme Court are for. As bad as the judicial system can be, how much worse would it be if every person who sat on a jury decided they were going to convict or acquit based on their personal opinion of the law? The place express to your opinion on a law is in the voting booth, not the jury room.

Work to repeal the law; work to decriminalize things that should never have been criminalized in the first place; and work to educate people about the arcane laws that have no place in our current society. Elect people who speak to your concerns. Organize people who feel the same to petition the government for redress of grievances. Be a voice for reason and persuade people to see why the law should be changed. But don't promote jury nullification. That's just as unconstitutional in my book.

[Jason Mallory]

While I agree with the premise, I'm not a fan of jury nullification. If we're talking about Constitutionality, then jury nullification is at least as bad as the law they convicted this poor lady under; perhaps worse. You're asking twelve unelected people to decide which laws are OK with them and which ones aren't -- and really since you only need one "not guilty" you're allowing one unelected individual to decide which laws should or shouldn't be followed. That's not OK in my book. That is pretty far from the system outlined in the Constitution. Juries have a very limited role in the judicial system. The prosecution must prove the defendant violated the law, the defense must ensure the prosecution has done so, and the jury is the finder of fact. A jury's only role is to determine whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the law. The jury's role is not to determine the Constitutionality of a law; that's what the Appeals courts and the Supreme Court are for. As bad as the judicial system can be, how much worse would it be if every person who sat on a jury decided they were going to convict or acquit based on their personal opinion of the law? The place express to your opinion on a law is in the voting booth, not the jury room.

Work to repeal the law; work to decriminalize things that should never have been criminalized in the first place; and work to educate people about the arcane laws that have no place in our current society. Elect people who speak to your concerns. Organize people who feel the same to petition the government for redress of grievances. Be a voice for reason and persuade people to see why the law should be changed. But don't promote jury nullification. That's just as unconstitutional in my book.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In our system citizens have three votes. The first one to elect people to public office. But what happens when politicians enact laws or don't vote the way that we the people want them to? That's where our second two votes insure that we the people control our servant government.

Our second vote in a republic is when we serve on a Grand Jury which determines if a person accused of committing a capital offense or an infamous crime by those in government can even be brought to trial. Permission to try someone must come from we the people.

Our third and most powerful vote in our system of government is when we serve in a jury. In a trial the juror has more power than the judge, President or all of Congress. Politicians can pass any law that they want but you as a juror decide in a jury trial whether to enforce the law by your plea of guilty or not guilty. If you say not guilty then the person must be set free without any further punishment or penalty for pleading not guilty.

Every citizen of the United States of America should be informed of their rights and know the power that lies in we the people withing our system of government.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County

[Jason Mallory]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any piece of legislation that is not in line with the Constitution is a non law.

[Jason Hyatt]

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In our system citizens have three votes. The first one to elect people to public office. But what happens when politicians enact laws or don't vote the way that we the people want them to? That's where our second two votes insure that we the people control our servant government.

Our second vote in a republic is when we serve on a Grand Jury which determines if a person accused of committing a capital offense or an infamous crime by those in government can even be brought to trial. Permission to try someone must come from we the people.

Our third and most powerful vote in our system of government is when we serve in a jury. In a trial the juror has more power than the judge, President or all of Congress. Politicians can pass any law that they want but you as a juror decide in a jury trial whether to enforce the law by your plea of guilty or not guilty. If you say not guilty then the person must be set free without any further punishment or penalty for pleading not guilty.

Every citizen of the United States of America should be informed of their rights and know the power that lies in we the people withing our system of government.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County

I just took (an admittedly quick) look through my copy of the Constitution. I can find no article or amendment which supports or even allows for jury nullification. I do find an extensive amount of information describing the legislative process and the role of the judiciary. Nowhere in Article III or in any of the Amendments do I find jury nullification as a right or duty of the people. Please point out in the text below where the people are afforded the right to throw out any law they don't like through jury nullification.

"Article III
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

"Article IV
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."


"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

[Jason Hyatt]

The people have the right to elect their representatives, vote those with whom they disagree out of office, and petition their government for a redress of grievances. The Legislative branch drafts bills, the Executive approves or vetoes that legislation, and the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of that legislation. Where, in any of that, is there an exception that allows me to say: "I think murder is perfectly acceptable and I have the right to acquit anyone regardless of the evidence against them if I don't like the law."

Article I
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[Jason Mallory]

I just took (an admittedly quick) look through my copy of the Constitution. I can find no article or amendment which supports or even allows for jury nullification. I do find an extensive amount of information describing the legislative process and the role of the judiciary. Nowhere in Article III or in any of the Amendments do I find jury nullification as a right or duty of the people. Please point out in the text below where the people are afforded the right to throw out any law they don't like through jury nullification.

Jury nullification is a part of most modern common law systems.

"Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy).

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law. Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977).[9] Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.
Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.
In some cases, a stealth juror will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law. Some lawyers use a shadow defense to get information entered into the record that would otherwise be inadmissible hoping that evidence will trigger a jury nullification."

[Jason Hyatt]

My point was not that jury nullification hasn't or doesn't occur. I would fall largely into the "...violation of the right to a jury trial..." category, but even that wasn't really my point. My point was that you stated quite explicitly that if it's not in the constitution it's not a law. I called you out on that to say: "Where is jury nullification found in the Constitution?" It isn't. The point is that there are rights, laws, and duties of citizenry that are not found within Constitution yet are perfectly valid ( I do not count jury nullification among them). For example: Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a city ordinance banning littering? Where is the right to spousal privilege found? Where in the Constitution does it say I need a license to drive, a license to practice Respiratory Therapy, or a permit to build a deck on my house? Is it your contention that the law requiring a health care practitioner to hold a license is unconstitutional? Since I can find no requirement for a health care license within any Article or Amendment, I must conclude that you believe anyone who decides they are capable of performing surgery does not require a medical license because said requirement would be unconstitutional.

I believe a juror has a duty to comply with the law; i.e. if the prosecution has adequately demonstrated the defendant violated the law, the juror is obligated to convict. When a law is unjust, there are means to remove that law found explicitly within the Constitution. So how can you argue for strict Constitutionality while promoting an exercise of power that is NOT found in the Constitution?

[Jason Mallory]

My point was not that jury nullification hasn't or doesn't occur. I would fall largely into the "...violation of the right to a jury trial..." category, but even that wasn't really my point. My point was that you stated quite explicitly that if it's not in the constitution it's not a law. I called you out on that to say: "Where is jury nullification found in the Constitution?" It isn't. The point is that there are rights, laws, and duties of citizenry that are not found within Constitution yet are perfectly valid ( I do not count jury nullification among them). For example: Where in the Constitution is there a provision for a city ordinance banning littering? Where is the right to spousal privilege found? Where in the Constitution does it say I need a license to drive, a license to practice Respiratory Therapy, or a permit to build a deck on my house? Is it your contention that the law requiring a health care practitioner to hold a license is unconstitutional?

I believe a juror has a duty to comply with the law; i.e. if the prosecution has adequately demonstrated the defendant violated the law, the juror is obligated to convict. When a law is unjust, there are means to remove that law found explicitly within the Constitution. So how can you argue for strict Constitutionality while promoting an exercise of power that is NOT found in the Constitution?

I didn't say "if it's not in the Constitution it's not a law." I said that any piece of legislation that does not comply with the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is null & void.

A jury has a right to uphold all laws that are in line with the spirit of the Constitution. Obviously I do not think that a person who kills in cold blood should be set free due to jury nullification. I do believe that a person on trial for growing a plant that will alleviate their pain should be set free due to jury nullification based on their right to the pursuit of happiness.

[Jason Hyatt]

I didn't say "if it's not in the Constitution it's not a law." I said that any piece of legislation that does not comply with the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is null & void.

A jury has a right to uphold all laws that are in line with the spirit of the Constitution. Obviously I do not think that a person who kills in cold blood should be set free due to jury nullification. I do believe that a person on trial for growing a plant that will alleviate their pain should be set free due to jury nullification based on their right to the pursuit of happiness.

OK, but the Declaration of Independence is not law. And I do firmly believe the law in this case IS unjust -- but I don't believe the jury acted erroneously (as awful as it is.). The jury doesn't have the *right* to uphold the law, the jury has an *obligation* to uphold the law. Individual citizens do not have the right to pick and choose which laws they will follow and which they will ignore -- especially not if your argument is one of strict Constitutionalism. Jurors are not Constitutional scholars or judges. That is not their role. The jury is the trier of fact. The Constitution does state quite clearly who is responsible for determining what laws are "...in line with the spirit of the Constitution" and that is the Supreme Court and the Appellate courts -- not the jury.

Once again, I come back to my point: the Constitution has plenty of provisions for preventing the enactment of unjust laws and for repealing unjust legislation that does make it through the process. The fact that such egregiously unjust laws as Jim Crow laws no longer exist (unless you're Mexican living in Arizona...) is evidence that the process does work -- albeit slowly. There is a process within the Constitution and if you are going to argue for Constitutionality then how can you argue against the process it lays out? Nowhere in that document does it provide for individual citizens to decide which laws they will follow and which they will not. To advocate for allowing ONE INDIVIDUAL to decide what laws are just or unjust is to promote either anarchy or dictatorship. Is your argument really that any legislation YOU PERSONALLY FEEL is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution is null and void? If that is the case, then are you advocating that ANY American citizen has the same right?

I reiterate: How can you argue for strict Constitutionality while promoting an exercise of power that is NOT found in the Constitution?

[Jason Mallory]

OK, but the Declaration of Independence is not law. And I do firmly believe the law in this case IS unjust -- but I don't believe the jury acted erroneously (as awful as it is.). The jury doesn't have the *right* to uphold the law, the jury has an *obligation* to uphold the law. Individual citizens do not have the right to pick and choose which laws they will follow and which they will ignore -- especially not if your argument is one of strict Constitutionalism. Jurors are not Constitutional scholars or judges. That is not their role. The jury is the trier of fact. The Constitution does state quite clearly who is responsible for determining what laws are "...in line with the spirit of the Constitution" and that is the Supreme Court and the Appellate courts -- not the jury.

Once again, I come back to my point: the Constitution has plenty of provisions for preventing the enactment of unjust laws and for repealing unjust legislation that does make it through the process. The fact that such egregiously unjust laws as Jim Crow laws no longer exist (unless you're Mexican living in Arizona...) is evidence that the process does work -- albeit slowly. There is a process within the Constitution and if you are going to argue for Constitutionality then how can you argue against the process it lays out? Nowhere in that document does it provide for individual citizens to decide which laws they will follow and which they will not. To advocate for allowing ONE INDIVIDUAL to decide what laws are just or unjust is to promote either anarchy or dictatorship. Is your argument really that any legislation YOU PERSONALLY FEEL is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution is null and void? If that is the case, then are you advocating that ANY American citizen has the same right?

I reiterate: How can you argue for strict Constitutionality while promoting an exercise of power that is NOT found in the Constitution?

'Right' was the wrong word, I should have said duty or obligation but I could not edit the post. It is the right of a jury member to judge the law.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st. Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941