18 January 2012
Click on the paragraphs above to read the entire article.
As usual, the only ones opposing the bill (while pretending to be neutral), were court officials whose careers depend on putting as many people behind bars as possible, a fact that did not go unnoticed.
{ 0 comments }
{ 0 comments }
To read the entire bill, click here.
This bill creates an affirmative defense to any felony or misdemeanor if there was no victim of the crime.
AN ACT relative to prosecution for victimless crimes.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Paragraph; General Requirements of Culpability. Amend RSA 626:2 by inserting after paragraph V the following new paragraph:
VI. It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution for any felony or misdemeanor charged under the laws of this state that there was no victim of the crime. In this paragraph, “victim” means any person who suffers direct or threatened physical, emotional, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or the attempted commission of a crime.
{ 0 comments }
This bill recognizes that jurors are constitutional officers, changes the juror’s oath to that contained in part 2, article 84 of the New Hampshire constitution, requires the court to inform jurors that statutes are guidelines and may be disregarded by jurors, and changes the term “petit jury” to “trial jury.”
AN ACT relative to the duties of jurors as constitutional officers and changing the term “petit jury” to “trial jury.”
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Duties of Jurors as Constitutional Officers; Instructions to Jurors. Amend RSA 500-A by inserting after section 20 the following new section:
500-A:21 Duties of Jurors as Constitutional Officers; Instructions to Jurors.
I. As constitutional officers, jurors:
(a) Shall consider statutes as guidelines and only guidelines to be used in determining case law.
(b) May ask the court for more evidence regarding the facts of a case. The court shall comply with all such requests.
(c) May decide that a statute is unconstitutional.
II. The court shall inform the jury that:
(a) Statutes are guidelines and guidelines only and that the jury may apply any given statute to the case under consideration only to the degree that the jurors determine is appropriate for the case under consideration.
(b) The jury may disregard any statute which the jury finds is not appropriate for the case.
(c) The jury may decide that any statute is unconstitutional.
(d) Jurors decide the penalties of the case. The court shall tell the jurors that they may decide according to their judgment of the case, that either lesser penalties than the statute states or more severe penalties than the statute states should apply. The penalties may include the death penalty.
To read the entire bill, click here.
{ 0 comments }
Professor of law and former federal prosecutor Paul Butler trusts jurors over power-grabbing prosecutors.
IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.
The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.
Click here to read the article, which mentions aforementioned Julien Heicklen, who is under prosecution for informing jurors of their rights in Manhattan.
The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
{ 0 comments }
There will be a hearing on this bill in near future, to be announced. Meanwhile, the basic text is found below. To read more, click here.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to the right of a jury to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Findings and Intent of the General Court. Under the decisions of both the New Hampshire supreme court and the United States Supreme Court, the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The jury system functions at its best when it is fully informed of the jury’s prerogatives. The general court wishes to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence, while preserving the rights of a criminal defendant, as enumerated in part 1, articles 15 and 20, New Hampshire Bill of Rights, and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.
2 New Section; Right of Accused; Jury Instruction. Amend RSA 519 by inserting after section 23 the following new section:
519:23-a Right of Accused. In all court proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The court shall permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right to the jury.
{ 0 comments }
This article is relative to the case of jurors’ Rights advocate Julian Heicklen, as reported previously here. Heiklen is an occasional visitor to the Shire.
To read the entire New York Times article, CLICK HERE.
Key excerpts:
“His speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” prosecutors wrote.
“No legal system could long survive,” they added, “if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”
If this means a possible end to the corrupt legal system of America today that puts more people behind bars than any other known country in the world, then so much the better.
[Prosecutor, Rebecca Mermelstein] noted that historically, jury nullification had at times produced just results, like acquittals by Northern juries in prosecutions under the fugitive slave laws.
Yes, and it’s up to you, the juror, to vote justly—regardless of any instruction to do otherwise.
Mr. Heicklen, who could face a six-month sentence if convicted, has asked for a jury trial. Ms. Mermelstein, opposing that demand, cited as one reason Mr. Heicklen’s ardent stance that juries should nullify. He would probably “urge a jury to do so in a case against him,” she wrote.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Another article published in the New York Times that was previously published below details how prosecutors are offering plea bargains which are harder and harder to turn down, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
{ 0 comments }
Article by Robert Constantine. This is a followup of the arrest of Jason Talley, as reported here previously.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
A member of the free press, Jason Talley of Talley TV was attacked on September 23rd, 2011 at the Cheshire County Superior Court by bailiffs and the County Sheriff’s Department. His “crime”? Attempting to exercise a right, that of the freedom of the press. He was jailed and is now free on bail awaiting a trial early in 2012. Talley states he will not take a plea bargain, that it goes against his conscience and that he wants a jury trial he further states he wants it completely transparent and recorded. Talley, a renowned videographer focusing on covering liberty issues and nonviolent civil disobedience is willing to bet a jury of his peers will not find he has harmed anyone. He asserts he has the right to do his job as a member of the free press. It appears the highest laws of the land, the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution agree with him….
The irony in this situation is that Jason Talley has exercised his right to film numerous times at many court locations throughout New Hampshire without incident and without being attacked by armed men. As recently as October 2011 Talley TV covered the Supreme Court “road show” hearings held in Moultonboro, NH in front of hundreds of high school students featuring the New Hampshire Supreme Court Justices. We (and I say “we”, because I helped out as a crew member for Talley TV on that day) were treated very well and provided every courtesy due members of the press covering a public event. In fact, at that event Talley TV was designated as the sole pool coverage for Independent Media by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s own Communication Specialist Laura Kiernan.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
{ 0 comments }
Reports Ian Freeman of FreeKeene.com:
Thanks to the folks at NHJury.com for putting together an awesome trifold for sharing information about Jury Nullification with NH jurors! Previous to this trifold, we had been using a flier from the Fully Informed Jury Association. FIJA’s flier had great information and was certainly the inspiration for this new NH-based trifold, which in my opinion, is very impressive. FK blogger Meg McLain did the graphics work (you can hire her to make your projects look amazing) and Rich Angell and Bob Constantine provided the text. Free Keene sponsored the print run.
To read the entire report, see the flier, or download it for your own use, CLICK HERE.
{ 0 comments }
This article was published in the December 2011 edition of Reason Magazine., by Greg Beato. To read the entire article, click on the quote below.
{ 0 comments }