Series also named: http://worldtraining.net/Juries.htm   and  http://worldtraining.net/Juries2.htm

See also: http://worldtraining.net/Nullification2.htm http://worldtraining.net/Zenger.htm

http://worldtraining.net/Nullification3.htm http://worldtraining.net/NullificationLegal.htm

http://worldtraining.net/policy.htm

Yesterday (Oct 24, 2014 ), a jury unanimously stood in defense of juror educators’ right to share general education information about jury nullification and the Fully Informed Jury Association on Facebook, in delivering a Not Guilty verdict in the case of Luke Lamb. Greene County, Illinois board member Lamb was charged with unlawful communication with a juror after his opponent in the local political race for sheriff sent a Facebook conversation of his to the State’s Attorney’s office for review.

Local Greene County Radio Station WLDS 1180 AM reported yesterday on Lamb’s big court victory:
BREAKING: “Not guilty” in Lamb case

On the final day of a two-day trial, jurors discussed the case for several hours before reaching a verdict. The Class Four felony charged against Lamb stemmed from an allegation that Lamb tried to get jury member Mark Boston to “vote not guilty” and “hang the jury if necessary” on a Greene County Court case.

Greene County Sheriff Rob McMillen was one of several people called to the stand yesterday. After the conclusion of the trial, Lamb’s attorney Patrick Watts had some strong feelings against the way McMillen handled the case.

“You have a sheriff who tried to execute a political hit- there’s really no other way to describe it- on his political opponent. This is the worst type of small-town policing that exists,” Watts claims. “And I tell you what- they’re not going go to do it again.”

In an interview on the Liberty Round Table podcast, Lamb’s attorney Patrick Watts commented on the case. (The interview starts about 5 minutes into the program.)

Underlying this and argued to the jury was all the underlying political motive, and just the common sense ridiculousness of someone being prosecuted for a public Facebook post during their campaign when they’re not even talking about a case and they’re not motivated to do anything or to sway anybody in a case. It’s absurd. I mean this is all political commentary, Sam. And the jury saw it…

That really tied into Luke’s broader message about the jury system. Hey, let’s stop wasting everybody’s time and money sitting jurors for ridiculous political hits, ridiculous victimless crimes. Why are we doing that?

The Sheriff’s motive or the opportunity for motive seems very obvious… I don’t know motive. Maybe it was just an error, but it’s hard to believe in ‘just errors’ when it’s so political and you’re trying to strike down a board member. You realize that the result of Mr. Lamb being convicted in this case would be that he could never sit on the Greene County board again, which he’s currently a board member, and he could never run for public office in the United States again in his life. That’s what they were trying to win with this trial.

The host asked about the possibility that a county sheriff who would target a political opponent would then go after the jurors in this case. Watts responds:

They all know how the system works, and in these small counties that don’t get publicity and don’t have real criminal defenses thrown at them, the police really think that with their big mustaches they can drive around and do whatever they want. They can drive 100 miles an hour through town and pull you over. They can do whatever they want, and they’re watching you. They’re watching you on Facebook. But I’m not going to go that far because there’s a lot of good cops in this county and that was very clear during the case. But the jurors did express concerns that, wait a minute, I’m voting against their fearless leader. Am I going to get pulled over? I mean this was all after the jury trial. Am I going to-are they going to harass me? And the fact that they have to ask that question is a sign and a symptom of that’s a problem.

Congratulations to Luke Lamb on this big win in court!

See previous FIJA coverage of this case:
-Jury Nullification Educator Called for Jury Duty on Date of His Own Trial
-Jury Nullification Educator’s Case Continues
-Lamb Seeks Dismissal of Felony Charge for Jury Nullification Posting on Facebook
-Are Jury Tampering Charges in Lamb Case Politically Motivated?
-Jury Nullification Comments, Link to FIJA on Facebook Prompt Jury Tampering Charge

Other coverage:
Closing arguments made in Luke Lamb case this morning
Closing arguments and verdict take place tomorrow in Lamb trial

      New Hampshire Bill Would Require Fully Informed Juries

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-require-fully-informed-juries/?doing_wp_cron=1389194845.2629489898681640625000#.Us1uYCjjKxo

 New Hampshire Rep. Frank Sapareto introduced HB1452, to require juries to be fully informed of it’s right to jury nullification.  [See also  http://worldtraining.net/Zenger.htm   ]

The bill states, “The court shall give the following instruction to the jury in all criminal proceedings: ‘The concept of jury nullification is well established in this country. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.’”  Under the law, a mistrial would be declared if the jury was not informed.

Jury nullification is doctrine under which a jury is tasked to judge not only the accused and the facts of the case, but also the law itself. The principle gives the people the power and authority to directly challenge and void unjust or unconstitutional laws, and protect their fellow citizens from unwarranted prosecution.

 The Compromise of 1850 and How Abolitionists Used Nullification  In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.   Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It also brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. Under the “law” northerners were subject to large fines for aiding a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master was given preferential treatment.

As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists. It also angered many everyday citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York, were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.  Jury nullification has been long apart of common law stemming from the Magna Carta and brought to America during colonial times . Earlier in U.S. history, fully informed juries were common practice. However, in 1895 Supreme Court held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. Despite the ruling, sate law can still require fully informed juries.  HB1452 was referred to the Judiciary Committee.   Action Items:  If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact the Judiciary Committee at the start of the year. Tell them to support and hold a hearing on HB1452.   Contact the committee chair:   Marjorie Smith Phone: (603)868-7500   Email: msmithpen@aol.com 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  D. Sieved:  The key to unlock the cage we all find ourselves in at this time is the judiciary. This branch of government was created, in part, to protect the people from the ambitions and excesses of the other branches of government. Nearly all important issues are ultimately determined in a courtroom. Citizens no longer have direct access to grand juries and find that their complaints are first filtered through the political office of the district attorney who will routinely refuse to prosecute anyone who is politically connected. Litigants are routinely denied standing or due process in the courts to frustrate those who seek justice from the state.     In Marbury v. Madison the supreme court ruled that an unconstitutional statute is void “ab initio” or from it’s inception. It reasonably follows that one of the first issues before any court should be the constitutionality of the law involved. Judges swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, within which is found your right to due process of law. Why is it that a denial of due process, the very definition of a void judgment, per Black’s 6th, never renders any judgment void or results in prosecution of the judge for perjury of his oath?

Judges are the gatekeepers of society. We depend upon them for redress and remedy. They have failed. In order to obtain remedy we must take back our courts by holding judges accountable.   “Jail For Judges” is a concept which creates an external review board to hear complaints of judges actions and negligence and to sanction judges up to and including imprisonment. When judges must choose between according due process to litigants and going to jail for failure to do so, that is when people will receive due process and not a minute before. When “Jail For Judges” becomes law in any single jurisdiction, i.e. any state of the union, a person need only move to that state long enough to establish residency in order to qualify to petition the court for vacation of a facially void judgment, which is the court record of a case which demonstrates a denial of due process.  People must qualify ballot initiatives to institute “Jail For Judges” and re-institute direct access for the public to grand juries to facilitate indictments against govt. actors who commit crimes. In this way the system may be used to purify itself and to return our country to a constitutionally restrained republic.