In light of the actions taken by the Mayor of San Francisco, and the current uproar on the Christian Right to take the Mayor to court, I thought it was important to discuss something called 'Jury Nullification'.
Jury Nullification is when the jury in a case disregards the actual facts presented in a case and returns a Not Guilty verdict because they believe the law under which the defendent is being charged is unjust. This is a power and a right that juries have had since the beginning of this country and beyond into colonial times.
Jury Nullification is what Ed Howdershelt was referring to when he said: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
In fact, many of the Founding Fathers defended the idea of Jury Nullification, claiming that it was an essential tool in the defense of liberty. Thomas Jefferson stated once in a letter to Thomas Paine "I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...." (1789). Though he does not explicitly use the words 'Jury Nullification', that is indeed his intent with that statement. More clearly, in 1972, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals stated: "[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."
As the Court of Appeals notes above, this would come into play in situations such as when a person is caught helping a slave escape to freedom. In the times before the Civil War, juries would find the person not guilty, despite the evidence. In times when the courts have attempted to squash freedom of speech, juries have nullified the charges and found the person not guilty.
How does this apply to California, and gay marriage? At some point, someone is going to be dragged into court for violating the California law, or the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" which both declare that marriage is between a man and woman only. I believe that person will be the mayor of San Francisco.
But the jury has the ability in this case to declare the Defense of Marriage act unjust. They can find those that will be charged not guilty, and make a statement that the laws need to be rewritten.
It is my hope that they will.
Here is more information on Jury Nullification if you're interested:
You should become a lawyer. I don't mean a corporate or criminal lawyer but rather a civil rights attorney. I think you would do quite well in the court room.
I think it's interesting that the issue of same-sex coupling is coming up in a presidential election year. For years, this issue has sat in still water and now there is a tidal wave of activity. Perhaps it gives those of a conservative voice something to rally for when they have no other major cause they can affect change on with this election. Just a thought.
From the message here:
http://www.mauricereeves.com/archives/000187.html
"Jury Nullification is what Ed Howdershelt was referring to when he said: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
Um. Well. No, it wasn't, really.
I was simply referring to the four stages of social discontent leading up to forcibly correcting the behavior of rulers of nations.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction and Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.netfirms.com
<< "Jury Nullification is what Ed Howdershelt was referring to when he said: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
Um. Well. No, it wasn't, really.
I was simply referring to the four stages of social discontent leading up to forcibly correcting the behavior of rulers of nations.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press >>
Um, well, how exactly is jury nullification different from a jury expressing "social discontent" and trying to correct "the behavior of rulers of nations" through voting not guilty when the defendant violated a wrong law?