I wrote out a quick email that could be sent to your friends and family. If someone who has studied this more than I have wants to add or subtract from it that would be great.
Being called to jury duty typically incites frustration and anger. Individuals are called away from their busy lives to sit in a courtroom. Jury duty typically incites boredom because individuals are simply expected to hear the facts of a case and explicitly follow the instructions of the judge. Jurors, as instructed by the judge, have little to no say in determining the justice of a case.
This, however, is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were concerned that the government may become tyrannical, and as such created a number of provisions to prevent such abuses. Power was decentralized both horizontally between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches, and vertically between the federal, state and local governments. There were to be popular elections, held intermittently, to insure that representatives were upholding the will of the people. Finally, cases were to be tried by a jury, to create a final check on the powers of government. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Jury Nullification is a de facto right of jurors to judge not only the case, but also the law itself. This right dates back to English common law and it was widely regarded and used in early America. A jury can deliver a “not guilty” verdict if they believe that the law in question is unjust. John Adam, second President of the United States, said of jurors: "It is not only his right but also 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 Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States said, “the jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone said, “the law is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” However, jury nullification poses a distinct threat to the power of government and so attempts have been made to diminish this power. While justices have been unable to remove the power entirely, they have attempted to hide this power from the people. In the decision of Sparf v. U.S., Justice John Harlan held that a trial judge had no responsibility to inform the jury of its right to nullify laws. Thus, it is extremely rare that a juror is instructed of this right by the judge. To make matters worse, lawyers risk being held in contempt if they inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.
The founders realized that unjust laws could be and often are made by government. Many people today accept a law to be “just,” simply because it is law. A survey of history could quickly dispel this belief. In America, slaves were treated as property by law and afterwards the Jim Crow Laws relegated African-Americans to an inferior position in society. There are countless other examples of unjust laws being enacted by government. The purpose of the law is to protect the life, liberty and property of all individuals. Fredric Bastiat said, “it is not true that the function of law is to regulate or consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of the same rights by any other person (Bastiat 64).” In recent years, contrary to its purpose, the law has intruded further and further upon the rights of the individual.
As a juror you have the right, if not the duty to nullify unjust laws. Next time you are called for jury duty, see it not as a burden, but as an opportunity to restore justice to the law.
For more information:
The Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/
Ron Paul video: Part 1 of 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
