Called To Jury Service - Some Important Facts For You

Dear Marcy and Dr. Ron,

Do either of you know of anyone fined by the mean-spirited courts for not showing up?

Best, Michael

Hi Michael,

You ask if I know someone who was fined for not showing up for jury
duty. No, I do not. But, given the extreme threats on the notices I
receive (as I tear each to bits and throw them in the trash can), I
would imagine that at some point a representative of the court would
show up at my door to arrest me (while rapists and murderers remain
at large). I always show up after the 3rd threat, and then let them
know how I feel about the court system. Frankly, I fail to see why
the courts keeps calling me back given the abuse they suffer from me
each time.

Marcy

Dear Marcy and Dr. Ron,

Do either of you know of anyone fined by the mean-spirited courts

for not showing up?

Best, Michael

From: Ron Getty
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some

Important Facts For You

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

Dear Dr. Mike;

No, not personally. But it is an option as the court/jury commissioner could "make an example" of you. FYI:

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 196 {c} provides that "Any person who fails to respond to jury commissioner or court inquiry as instructed, may be summoned to appear before the jury commissioner or the court to answer such inquiry." California Code of Civil Procedure Section 209 provides that "Any prospective trial juror who has been summoned for service, and who fails to attend upon the court as directed or to respond to the court or jury commissioner and to be excused from attendance, may be attached and compelled to attend; and, following an order to show cause hearing, the court may find the prospective juror in contempt of court, punishable by a fine of up to $1000.00, or 5 days in the county jail, or both." [CCP 1218(a)]

Secondly, with the new jury rules if you are dismissed that day you free for another year - so the old hanging around day after day when dismissed is no longer an excuse. Of course, if you are called to a court room and the jury is still being empaneled then you are required to come back.

In addition, there is in San Francisco the telephone stand by program where a group of jurors by group number call in to find out if they actually have to show up. I have been on this before and you call in each night and if the week goes by and your group is not called up you are free for another year.

In other words, there aren't too many reasons for being excused from appearing where if called you still may be dismissed.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Dear Marcy;

If the court keeps calling you back after they suffer abuse from you
maybe they are into M & M.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Michael,

You ask if I know someone who was fined for not showing up for

jury

duty. No, I do not. But, given the extreme threats on the

notices I

receive (as I tear each to bits and throw them in the trash can),

I

would imagine that at some point a representative of the court

would

show up at my door to arrest me (while rapists and murderers

remain

at large). I always show up after the 3rd threat, and then let

them

know how I feel about the court system. Frankly, I fail to see why
the courts keeps calling me back given the abuse they suffer from

me

each time.

Marcy

>
> Dear Marcy and Dr. Ron,
>
> Do either of you know of anyone fined by the mean-spirited

courts

for not showing up?
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Ron Getty
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some
Important Facts For You
>
>
> 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

I agree with Ron. Difficult if not impossible to be excused. But
being dismissed either by the court or one of the attorneys is what I
aim for and what has happened in the past.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:

Dear Dr. Mike;

No, not personally. But it is an option as the court/jury

commissioner could "make an example" of you. FYI:

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 196 {c} provides

that "Any person who fails to respond to jury commissioner or court
inquiry as instructed, may be summoned to appear before the jury
commissioner or the court to answer such inquiry." California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 209 provides that "Any prospective trial
juror who has been summoned for service, and who fails to attend upon
the court as directed or to respond to the court or jury commissioner
and to be excused from attendance, may be attached and compelled to
attend; and, following an order to show cause hearing, the court may
find the prospective juror in contempt of court, punishable by a fine
of up to $1000.00, or 5 days in the county jail, or both." [CCP 1218
(a)]

Secondly, with the new jury rules if you are dismissed that day you

free for another year - so the old hanging around day after day when
dismissed is no longer an excuse. Of course, if you are called to a
court room and the jury is still being empaneled then you are
required to come back.

In addition, there is in San Francisco the telephone stand by

program where a group of jurors by group number call in to find out
if they actually have to show up. I have been on this before and you
call in each night and if the week goes by and your group is not
called up you are free for another year.

In other words, there aren't too many reasons for being excused

from appearing where if called you still may be dismissed.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

From: dredelstein@...
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:23:21 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some

Important Facts For You

Dear Marcy and Dr. Ron,

Do either of you know of anyone fined by the mean-spirited courts

for not showing up?

Best, Michael

From: Ron Getty
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Called To Jury Service - Some

Important Facts For You

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

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@...m
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.