Called To Jury Service - Some Important Facts For You

Marcy,

Although your strategy is better than being kidnapped by the court for days, it still involves missing part of your work to go to the court.

Any suggestions for getting off by phone or mail? Have you heard of anyone subpoenaed who simply failed to respond to a notice?

Best, Michael

Michael,

Unfortunately, I keep getting increasingly threatening missives from
the court, until I respond. So I doubt that there is a way to excuse
yourself by phone, e-mail, letter, etc. I have tried to respond by
claiming the extreme financial hardship clause, but the court seems
to ignore that. I do not respond well to threats of force, so the
best I can do is just show up, if required, and then state my speech.

Marcy

Marcy,

Although your strategy is better than being kidnapped by the court

for days, it still involves missing part of your work to go to the
court.

Any suggestions for getting off by phone or mail? Have you heard of

anyone subpoenaed who simply failed to respond to a notice?

Best, Michael

From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:22 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some Important

Facts For You

If you are self employed, like me, and do not get paid if you do

not

work, first thing you say, is, as I do, "Your honor, I just thought
you would like to know I am a Libertarian." Works every time.

BTW,

I also tell the Court that more self employed people would gladly
serve if the system would get its act together.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Some pertinent facts from the FIJA - Fully Informed Jury
Association. There is a very bright side to being on jury duty -
first don't let them know you are a Libertarian and are aware of

jury

nullification - then enjoy the fireworks with peoples justice

instead

of government justice. Power to the people and the jury.
>
> Home page: http://www.fija.org/
>
> The home page has a sidebar which includes a pdf on jury
nullification including court quotes on using it.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> If You Are Called For Jury Service Don't worry! Be happy! Look
at jury service as an opportunity to "do good" for yourself and
others. It's your chance to help the justice system deliver

justice,

which is absolutely essential to a free society.
>
> Also, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in
practically any other way as a citizen: your vote on the verdict is
also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an opinion

which

our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected

to

office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful

impact

on the rules we live by than you will as a trial juror.
>
> However, unless you are fully informed of your powers as a juror,
you may be manipulated by the less powerful players in the

courtroom

into delivering the verdict they want, instead of what justice

would

require. That is why this was written--to give you information that
you're not likely to receive from the attorneys, or even from the
judge.
>
> Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are
some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire,

the

jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the
questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If

you

refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to
serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to
knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or
that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or
reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving!
So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.
>
> Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision
requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge
explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct"
the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law,

but

you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's

oath

is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as

advice.

>
> Understanding the full context in which an illegal act was
committed is essential to deciding whether the defendant acted
rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a
guilty verdict, but what about justice? If the jurors agree that,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged,
then "context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you can

live

with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go to you, so be sure to
ask the judge how you can pose questions to witnesses, so that you
can learn the complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it
out.
>
> When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply
the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself

is

wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being
applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out
as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the
defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much

of

today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against
the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of
guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad
law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that
violates your conscience.
>
> Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the
defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great
mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by
compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of

anything,

then vote "not guilty" on all counts.
>
> You can't be punished for voting according to your conscience.
Judges (and other jurors) often pressure hold-out jurors into
abandoning their true feelings and voting with the majority "...to
avoid the expense of a hung jury and mistrial". But you don't have

to

give in. Why? Because...
>
> Hung juries are "OKAY". If voting your conscience should lead to

a

hung jury, not to worry, you're doing the responsible thing. There

is

no requirement that you must reach a verdict. And the jury you hang
may be significant as one of a series of hung juries sending

messages

to the legislature that the law you're working with has problems,

and

it's time for a change. If you want to reach consensus, however,

one

possible way is to remind your fellow jurors that...
>
> Jurors have the power to reduce charges against the defendant,
provided that "lesser included offenses" exist in law (ask the

judge

to list and explain them, and the range of potential punishments

that

go with each). Finding guilt at a lower level than charged can be
appropriate in cases where the defendant has indeed victimized
someone, but not so seriously as the original charges would

indicate.

And, if it will be up to the judge to decide the sentence, it's
within the power of the jury to find the defendant guilty of a
reduced charge which will, at most, entail the amount of punishment
it thinks is appropriate.
>
> The Jury Power Page hopes the above information helps you to find

a

verdict that you believe is conscientious and just, a verdict which
you can therefore be proud to discuss with friends, family, legal
professionals, the community or the media, should any of them want

to

Dear Marcy and Dr. Mike;
   
  You must appear in person and unfortunately hardship as such means severe financial hardship and then usually it requires a judge to okay the extreme financial hardship dismissal. The Jury Commissioner is limited in what they can do for pre-trial dismissal.
   
  Being a self-employed small business owner is NOT considered to be a financial hardship.
   
  However, if placed on the jury panel and during questioning you raise the financial hardship it may influence the trial lawyers to use one of their limited jury panel excusals.
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
  "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
  Michael,

Unfortunately, I keep getting increasingly threatening missives from
the court, until I respond. So I doubt that there is a way to excuse
yourself by phone, e-mail, letter, etc. I have tried to respond by
claiming the extreme financial hardship clause, but the court seems
to ignore that. I do not respond well to threats of force, so the
best I can do is just show up, if required, and then state my speech.

Marcy

Marcy,

Although your strategy is better than being kidnapped by the court

for days, it still involves missing part of your work to go to the
court.

Any suggestions for getting off by phone or mail? Have you heard of

anyone subpoenaed who simply failed to respond to a notice?

Best, Michael

From: Amarcy D. Berry
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:22 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some Important

Facts For You

If you are self employed, like me, and do not get paid if you do

not

work, first thing you say, is, as I do, "Your honor, I just thought
you would like to know I am a Libertarian." Works every time.

BTW,

I also tell the Court that more self employed people would gladly
serve if the system would get its act together.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Everyone;
>
> Some pertinent facts from the FIJA - Fully Informed Jury
Association. There is a very bright side to being on jury duty -
first don't let them know you are a Libertarian and are aware of

jury

nullification - then enjoy the fireworks with peoples justice

instead

of government justice. Power to the people and the jury.
>
> Home page: http://www.fija.org/
>
> The home page has a sidebar which includes a pdf on jury
nullification including court quotes on using it.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> If You Are Called For Jury Service Don't worry! Be happy! Look
at jury service as an opportunity to "do good" for yourself and
others. It's your chance to help the justice system deliver

justice,

which is absolutely essential to a free society.
>
> Also, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in
practically any other way as a citizen: your vote on the verdict is
also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an opinion

which

our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected

to

office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful

impact

on the rules we live by than you will as a trial juror.
>
> However, unless you are fully informed of your powers as a juror,
you may be manipulated by the less powerful players in the

courtroom

into delivering the verdict they want, instead of what justice

would

require. That is why this was written--to give you information that
you're not likely to receive from the attorneys, or even from the
judge.
>
> Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are
some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire,

the

jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the
questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If

you

refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to
serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to
knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or
that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or
reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving!
So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.
>
> Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision
requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge
explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct"
the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law,

but

you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's

oath

is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as

advice.

>
> Understanding the full context in which an illegal act was
committed is essential to deciding whether the defendant acted
rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a
guilty verdict, but what about justice? If the jurors agree that,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged,
then "context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you can

live

with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go to you, so be sure to
ask the judge how you can pose questions to witnesses, so that you
can learn the complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it
out.
>
> When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply
the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself

is

wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being
applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out
as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the
defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much

of

today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against
the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of
guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad
law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that
violates your conscience.
>
> Prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the
defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great
mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by
compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of

anything,

then vote "not guilty" on all counts.
>
> You can't be punished for voting according to your conscience.
Judges (and other jurors) often pressure hold-out jurors into
abandoning their true feelings and voting with the majority "...to
avoid the expense of a hung jury and mistrial". But you don't have

to

give in. Why? Because...
>
> Hung juries are "OKAY". If voting your conscience should lead to

a

hung jury, not to worry, you're doing the responsible thing. There

is

no requirement that you must reach a verdict. And the jury you hang
may be significant as one of a series of hung juries sending

messages

to the legislature that the law you're working with has problems,

and

it's time for a change. If you want to reach consensus, however,

one

possible way is to remind your fellow jurors that...
>
> Jurors have the power to reduce charges against the defendant,
provided that "lesser included offenses" exist in law (ask the

judge

to list and explain them, and the range of potential punishments

that

go with each). Finding guilt at a lower level than charged can be
appropriate in cases where the defendant has indeed victimized
someone, but not so seriously as the original charges would

indicate.

And, if it will be up to the judge to decide the sentence, it's
within the power of the jury to find the defendant guilty of a
reduced charge which will, at most, entail the amount of punishment
it thinks is appropriate.
>
> The Jury Power Page hopes the above information helps you to find

a

verdict that you believe is conscientious and just, a verdict which
you can therefore be proud to discuss with friends, family, legal
professionals, the community or the media, should any of them want

to

know what happened, how, and why.
>
> Posted by: FIJA
> Posted on: 2006-03-06 22:44:32
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

  SPONSORED LINKS
        U s government grant U s government student loan California politics