Hey Folks,

I did not get enough "valid" signatures for the Bandon Initiative I2014002.   I missed it by 44 signatures.  There was 268 required and I only had 224 good signatures. 

However, that will not deter my goal of getting more choices of candidates on the Bandon ballot.  The Committee for More Citizen Representation will refile the same initiative and try again.  We may even add another ordinance to lower the number of signatures required to put a measure on the Bandon ballot.  It is a difficult task to get 15% of the registered voters in any city due to the expense and the limited places to legally gather signatures......Rob T.  

Related Posts:
Important Message for People Living in Bandon & the Bandon School District
New Bandon Initiative is About More Choice

Call To Action
03.23.17
On March 22nd, we asked you to contact House Rep Brad Witt to express your concerns with his House Joint Resolution 13.

As many of you who contacted him know, Rep Witt has heard your concerns and agrees that in its current form, HJR 13 is overly broad and could well create situations Witt never intended. He has agreed to rework the resolution to address those issues.

But there is lots more to be done.

As you know the passage of SB 941 in  2015 has caused all of the problems we predicted it would. 941 outlawed most private transfers of firearms and was nothing more than a payoff to Mike Bloomberg and an attack on law abiding gun owners.

We repeatedly warned legislators that this bill was dangerous and opposed by most counties and most Sheriffs.  The anti-gun liberals in the legislature and big city cops who supported this law showed no interest in actually enforcing it when one of their own anti-gun activists blatantly violated it. But the damage it has done to Oregonians is incalculable.

The liberals who pushed 941 through to pay Bloomberg back for the money he poured into Oregon claimed the bill was about "safety" and "keeping guns out of the wrong hands." They told us it was for the good of "domestic violence victims." And of course, it was all lies.

In fact, 941 has made Oregon a far less safe place. 

As we have reported many times, when people who are identified as "prohibited persons" attempt to buy guns, they are virtually never arrested, even if they are actively wanted at the time!
Under 941 it is now a crime to safeguard a firearm for a neighbor who is going out of town or a friend who needs to remove a gun from his home for personal reasons. This from the same people who are demanding "safe storage" of firearms.

But it's even worse than that.  As result of the refusal of the anti-gun left to even consider the consequences of SB 941, Oregon has put its most vulnerable directly in the cross hairs of violence.

Oregon has a program for people who have active and credible threats against their lives. It's called the "Address Confidentiality Program" and participants essentially live in hiding.  Thanks to the leftist supporters of SB 941, all of whom generate plenty of theater about protecting the victims of domestic violence, anyone covered under the program is forbidden from buying a gun. You heard that right. The law forbids people who live in daily fear from purchasing a firearm to defend themselves and their children.

 This is so obviously wrong it is hard to believe that even the most ardent haters of gun rights could justify it. But of course, they do.

We want to fix this.

Make no mistake, all of SB 941 is flat out bad law and we want to see the whole bill repealed. But as we move towards that goal we want to reverse as many of the worst elements of the bill as we can.

There are other effects of 941.  For example, people who live in recreational vehicles can no longer legally buy firearms if they have a "continuous traveler" driver's license and now even antique firearms require a background check for a "private" transfer, something not required for a purchase from a dealer!

Quite a few good bills have been introduced by our friends in the legislature. You can see all current 2017 gun bills here, but three bills that would address these crucial issues are languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Floyd Prozanski, one of the legislature's most militant anti-gunners.

Those bills are: 
SB 667,  SB 854 and SB 855.

Please contact Floyd Prozanski and tell him it's time to fix the mess they made with SB 941. Please consider cc'ing your note to Senate President Peter Courtney who has the power to instruct Prozanski to hear these important bills. We cannot continue to allow the extremists in the legislature to keep putting innocent people at risk.

Prozanski's contact info can be found here.
His email is Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov
Peter Courtney's contact info can be found here.
Courtney's email is  sen.petercourtney@oregonlegislature.gov

A sample message follows.

Related Posts:
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868
Second Amendment Legislation Repeals Parts of Background Checks HB 2973
OFF ~ Legislative Update
Lake County BOC  Public Meeting for Legal Update on SAPO February 15, 2017 10am
OFF ~ Multnomah Declares War On Gun Owners
Columbia County Voters ~ Download & Sign Second Amendment Petition
Action Alert:  County Commissioners Need to Hear Second Amendment Supporters
Coos County Watchdog Public Meeting on New Initiatives March 3, 2017 @ 6:00 pm
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance “SAPO” Update: January 26, 2017
Coos County Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until Feb 17, 2017
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
SB548~ Relating to Residency Requirements for Concealed Handgun Licenses
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed
Coos Bay Manager, Secretary of State & LOC Agree City's Laws Equal to State Law
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
Entering A Second Amendment Sanctuary County
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Kevin Starret Endorses Teri Grier 
Second Amendment Chief Petitioners Needed for these Oregon Counties

Senate Committee Continues PERS Consideration

The Senate Committee on Workforce, chaired by Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-Portland), continued its consideration and analysis of reform concepts for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) on Wednesday. Several amendments were introduced for SB 560, sponsored by Senator Tim Knopp (R-Bend). The amendments included the following:



• Reducing the multipliers used for calculating full-formula benefits from 1.67 percent for general service members to 1 percent for Tiers I and II, and reducing the multiplier for police and fire members from 2 percent to 1.2 percent. A retiree’s benefit is calculated by multiplying their final average salary by the multiplier for each year of creditable service (-2 amendment);

Severing the link between the assumed earnings rate and the annuity rate, and reduce it to 3.5 percent. This amendment addresses the “money-match” requirements that remain in the system. Currently, retirees eligible for the money-match are guaranteed a rate of return of 7.5 percent regardless of PERS investment earnings (-3 amendment);

• Prohibiting the use of accrued sick and vacation time that would accumulate as part of an employee’s final average salary calculation, effective on passage (-4 amendment);

• Increasing the retirement age for general service employees in the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP) from 65 to 67 years of age regardless of years of service(-5 amendment);

• Requiring a public employer to pay a percentage of an employee’s salary into PERS when they hire a retiree (-6 amendment); and

• Increasing the amount of time it takes a newly-hired employee to establish membership in OPSRP (-8 and -9 amendments).

The committee only heard testimony from an invited panel that consisted of PERS staff, legislative counsel and the state’s chief human resources officer. The panel examined the constitutionality, systems savings and human resources aspects of each of the proposals. The preliminary analysis of these amendments can be found here.
The committee is expected to continue this discussion next week.

Contact: Scott Winkels, Intergovernmental Relations Associate – swinkels@orcities.org                    

The PERS reform options deemed likely constitutional by Legislative Counsel include:
1. Cap the final average salary calculation at $100,000 per year;
2. Use a market rate for Money Match annuities;
3. Ensure all PERS members contribute to their benefit by redirecting member contributions into an account to help pay for their future retirement;
4. Stop unfair pension enhancement by preventing future unused vacation and sick leave from artificially inflating final average salary calculations;
5. Spread the final average salary calculation over five instead of three consecutive years;
6. Move all new employees to a defined contribution plan requiring employers to match the 6% employee contribution into the Individual Account Program; and
7. Allow full bargaining regarding government payment of employee PERS contributions and limiting agreements to five-year periods.

The PERS actuary, Milliman, is evaluating the financial impacts of these proposals. If implemented, these reforms would not affect benefits already accrued by current PERS members.
“We now have a solid place to start conversations on real, fair PERS reform, and we’re ready to get to work,” said Senators Knopp and Johnson. “We invite any Oregonian interested in solving our PERS crisis to join us.”

Related Posts:
PERS ~ Possible Solutions, which will be ignored by the legislature....
PERS---Promises Made, Promises Broken, along with the budget
Letter to Editor---The Problem with PERS
Action Alert:---State Legislation PERS Bill
PERS---Liability Down Strong Returns still leaves $14 Billion Deficit...
PERS---Worse than Fuzzy Math: It’s Fictional
PERS---OR Lawmakers Must Address PERS reform--Agenda  2013
PERS---Study   shows advantages of 'defined benefit' pensions
PERS---issue heads back to Oregon Supreme Court
PERS---What is it? 
PERS---executive director answers questions about possible reform
What is the PERS crisis? 

March 14, 2017
The Oregon Jury Nullification Bill
 
Throughout the history of western civilization, there is a legal concept wherein individual jurors or an entire jury will either forgo and set aside the evidence as presented or the instructions given to them by the judge, or both and reach a verdict based on their own conscience.   It comes from a sanctioned doctrine subscribing that jurors are the judges of the facts, the law, and the moral imperative.   
 
Oregon is unique in the sense of already having a state constitution that enumerates this exalted tradition of jury discretion.  The sixteenth amendment states that, “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases,” which should be fully disclosed to every jury at every trial to ensure their impartiality.
 
Since this is presently not the case, State Senator Kim Thatcher recently introduced a bill, SB924, which would interject wording pertaining to jury discretion into the jury instructions.  The bill states that, “As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty even if you find that the state has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Many legal experts, including Constitutional Attorney KrisAnne Hall and Professor Roger Roots PhD, are confident that adding this single sentence, or a similar statement to the jury instructions in every courtroom is one lawful remedy to level an imbalance that is absent in the Judicial Branch of government today.  In Oregon, it would help restore the dwindling confidence and pride in the state’s legal system. 
 
The Sixth Amendment espouses that every individual has a right to an impartial jury. 
 
The impartiality of a juror will always be in question unless they are knowingly informed of the jury’s “power to acquit” and “right to nullify” even if guilt of the defendant is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The only way for a defendant to have absolute knowledge that a jury of their peers is aware of this inherent authority is if the Judge in their case explains this right to the jury from the jury instructions before deliberations. 
 
 The term for this authority is “Jury Nullification,” which does not actually invalidate any law. It just nullifies the law in a particular case at the jury’s discretion.     
 
The court system has been overlooking the jury’s “power to acquit” and the “right to nullify” to the point of nonexistence.  Many times during US history, precedence has been set allowing the jury to find a defendant innocent, even when the decision was clearly contradictory to the law.  Yet today many Judges tell the juries that there is no such right.   In some cases, judges have rejected jurors from the jury panel due to their intent to nullify the law, and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit validated this practice in a decision made in 1997.  
 
Consider this, before every interrogation of a suspect, an officer is supposed to read that person their Miranda Rights to afford them the opportunity of making an objective decision pertaining to their legal situation.  More importantly, it reiterates the fact that for the record the suspect was knowingly aware of their rights thus preserving the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings, which could possibly prevent the government losing the case on appeal.  Now extend that theory of acknowledgement to a jury.  A jurist that is unaware of their legal authority and individual rights, the “power to acquit” and the “right to nullify,”  would automatically be partial to the prosecution’s position in any trial due to this omission, thereby abolishing the defendant’s ability to receive an unbiased verdict by an impartial jury of their peers.     
 
The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” which establishes double jeopardy protections.  During the colonial era, the king would prosecute revolutionary colonists repeatedly until the royal court found them guilty.  The Founding Fathers were accustomed to this legal treachery and it is the reason why they held trial by jury as a very revered institution, and that the decision made by the jury was final, no matter what the court may have proven.  Jury discretion was and still is one of the few mechanisms a free society utilizes to keep the chains on unrestrained government. 
 
Unfortunately, the US court system currently operates on the assumption that individuals on a jury may or may not be aware of their rights as a jurist and for Judges and Prosecutors ignorance is bliss, but for defendants it is a dangerous bias.  In many other jurisdictions, the jury instructions have gone from “may” convict to “must” convict when the prosecution proves that a defendant is guilty of breaking a law, which eliminates any chance for a jury to use their own discretionary authority and common sense when deliberating a case.  
 
The ingrained system for both the federal and state courts are not going to exert any effort in explaining to prospective jurors of their legitimate duty, because it benefits the government’s ability for an easy conviction. 
 
The Legislature will have to initiate change to reform this systemic failure of the Judiciary.   Federal and state lawmakers will have to write new laws to compel the courts to inform the jury of their duties and rights by passing legislation that will forcibly insert that information into the jury instructions and compel the Judges to read those instructions before deliberations, or suffer the specified consequences.     
 
Click the following link to find out more information on SB924 the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill.  www.facebook.com/oregonjurynullificationlaw & www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com   
 
Keep track of the bill on OLIS at
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB924.                                     
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is the founder of a virtual network of local activist at CoosCountyWatchdog.com, and a chief petitioner for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. 

Right now in the Senate Committee On Judiciary there is a bill concerning the Right to an Impartial Jury.  It would add wording to the jury instructions given by the judge to the jury explaining their power to acquit and right to nullify.  
 
SB 924 is the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill
 
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.”
 
Please contact the following Senators on the Judiciary Committee and politely ask them to vote yes on Senate Bill 924, the Oregon Jury Nullification Bill.  Ask them to schedule a Hearing for SB 924, and to pass the bill on for a full vote of the Senate.  Then ask them to support the Right to Jury Nullification and please vote in favor of the measure.
Right now SB 924 is in the Senate Committee On Judiciary
 
More information and resource material concerning Jury Nullification is immediately following the list.  
 
2017 Regular Session
Senate Committee On Judiciary
 
Committee Chair Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704   District Phone: 541-342-2447
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-413, Salem, Oregon 97301
District Address: PO Box 11511, Eugene, OR 97440
Email: Sen.FloydProzanski@OregonLegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/prozanski
 
Senator James I. Manning Jr.
Democrat - District 7 - North Eugene, West Eugene, Santa Clara, and Junction City
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1707
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-205, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/manning
 
Senator Michael Dembrow
Democrat - District 23 - Portland
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723    District Phone: 503-281-0608
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-407, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us
Twitter: @michaeldembrow
 
Senator Dennis Linthicum
Republican - District 28 - Klamath Falls
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1728
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-305, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/linthicum
 
Senator Kim Thatcher
Republican - District 13 - Keizer
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1713
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-307, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: Sen.KimThatcher@state.or.us   
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/Thatcher

Related Posts:
Jury Nullification in American History
Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

The Role of Jury Nullification in American History:
            The Trial of John Peter Zenger ~ 1733
John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who printed a publication called The NEW YORK WEEKLY JOURNAL. This publication harshly pointed out the actions of the corrupt royal governor, WILLIAM S. COSBY. It accused the government of rigging elections and allowing the French enemy to explore New York harbor. It accused the governor of an assortment of crimes and basically labeled him an idiot. Although Zenger merely printed the articles, he was hauled into jail. The authors were anonymous, and Zenger would not name them.
 
In 1733, Zenger was accused of LIBEL, a legal term whose meaning is quite different for us today than it was for him. In his day it was libel when you published information that was opposed to the government. Truth or falsity were irrelevant. He never denied printing the pieces. The judge therefore felt that the verdict was never in question. Something very surprising happened, however.
[…]
When the trial began and Zenger’s new attorney began his defense, a stir fluttered through the courtroom. The most famous lawyer in the colonies, ANDREW HAMILTON of Philadelphia, stepped up to defend Zenger. Hamilton admitted that Zenger printed the charges and demanded the prosecution to prove them false. In a stirring appeal to the jury, Hamilton pleaded for his new client’s release. “It is not the cause of one poor printer,” he claimed, “but the cause of liberty.” The judge ordered the jury to convict Zenger if they believed he printed the stories. But the jury returned in less than ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty.
 
Cheers filled the courtroom and soon spread throughout the countryside. Zenger and Hamilton were hailed as heroes. Another building block of liberty was in place.
 
The Trial of William Penn ~ 1670
The common-law tradition of freedom of religion and of assembly has its origins in the 1670 trial of William Penn, accused of preaching an illegal religion in Gracechurch Street, London. The jury refused to convict Penn in spite of clear evidence of guilt, because they were unwilling to brand a man a felon for worshiping God according to his own beliefs. When the court attempted to punish Penn’s jury for their act of nullification, a higher court reversed on the principle that it is only the jury, not the judge, which has the authority to decide whether a defendant is guilty.
 
Fugitive Slave Act ~ 1850
Jury nullification was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high-profile convictions.
 
The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.
 
Conscription ~ 1864 to Present
Historians often cite the Fugitive Slave Act as one of the polarizing incidents that led us into Civil War a decade later. That war also saw, on both sides, another instance of the government compelling citizens to do its bidding: the military draft. Many citizens agreed with the justice of their side’s fight in that war, but were not eager to participate in it.
The Confederacy was the first to pass conscription, in 1862, and the Union followed the next year. Most men complied, but there was resistance, most famously in New York City’s draft riots of 1864. Again, the people were happy to acquiesce to a government policy—pursuing victory in the Civil War—but looked at it more critically when asked to be the instrument of that policy.
 
Since that time, American government has grown in scope and power, but there are still few acts that require the average citizen to participate against his will. One exception, the military draft, became accepted as an emergency measure with the rise of mass armies in the twentieth century. Since the end of the Vietnam War, draft registration has become a formality and no one has actually been compelled to serve against his will. Some in Congress have questioned whether registration is even still necessary.
 
What do you do when a child’s on fire? We saw children on fire.
What, what do you do when a child’s on fire in a war that was a mistake?
What do you do? Like write a letter?
 
With these words from Father Michael Doyle, the award-winning documentary film by Anthony Giacchino entitled The Camden 28 begins to tell the extraordinary story of a group of peace activists working to end the Vietnam War. In the early hours of 22 August 1971, this group of 28 including students, blue collar workers, clergy, and others, most of them would put into motion their direct action against the war. Several of them broke into a draft board office in Camden, New Jersey, and set about their work of destroying and removing draft records while others monitored the situation and advised from outside the buidling. Their goal was to shut the office down. With just a few minutes left before they planned to leave, they were accosted by FBI agents who had lain in wait, watching them work without interfering until they were given the order to intervene.
[…]
63 days after the trial began and nearly two years after their direct action the fate of the Camden 28 would be settled by their jury. On 20 May 1973, concluding an historic trial, the jury who had listened and deliberated over the case for two months declared each and every one of the defendants Not Guilty on every count against them. This jury exercised its right of jury nullification to vacate more than 100 charges en masse in this single trial.

Subsequent to this abject defeat in court, the government dropped charges against the other defendants who had been severed from this trial. Supreme Court Justice William Brendan would refer to the Camden 28 as “one of the great trials of the 20th century.” Just months after the close of the trial, the U.S. would end its military involvement in Vietnam.
 
 
Alcohol Prohibition
In 1920, the US Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority wished to impose their moral beliefs on the minority of citizens. The jury protected citizens from the tyranny of the majority. During Prohibition, juries nullified alcohol control laws about 60 percent of the time. The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Jury resistance contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition. The jury reflecting made prohibition a toothless amendment.

Related Posts:
Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

Quotes on the Fully Informed Jury
Quote From the Diary of John Adams on the Right of Juries ~ 1771 Feb. 12
[It] has already been admitted to be most advisable for the Jury to find a Special Verdict where they are in doubt of the Law. But, this is not often the Case–1000 Cases occur in which the Jury would have no doubt of the Law, to one, in which they would be at a Loss. The general Rules of Law and common Regulations of Society, under which ordinary Transactions arrange themselves, are well enough known to ordinary Jurors. The great Principles of the Constitution, are intimately known, they are sensibly felt by every Briton—it is scarcely extravagant to say, they are drawn in and imbibed with the Nurses Milk and first Air.
 
Now should the Melancholly Case arise, that the Judges should give their Opinions to the Jury, against one of these fundamental Principles, is a Juror obliged to give his Verdict generally according to this Direction, or even to find the fact specially and submit the Law to the Court. Every Man of any feeling or Conscience will answer, no. It is not only his right but his Duty in that Case to find the Verdict according to his own best Understanding, Judgment and Conscience, tho in Direct opposition to the Direction of the Court.
 
A religious Case might be put of a Direction against a divine Law.
 
The English Law obliges no Man to decide a Cause upon Oath against his own Judgment, nor does it oblige any Man to take any Opinion upon Trust, or to pin his faith on the sieve of any mere Man.
 
 
Quote from John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ~
 Jury Instructions in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
 
 
Quote by Victor S. Yarros Jury Reform originally published in Liberty, 1 June 1895
It is needless to say that no one has suggested the reform of making the jury judges of law as well as of fact. Indeed, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with jury trial, the suggestion must seem paradoxical. But, in reality, such a reform would, even under present conditions, prove highly beneficial. It would simplify the proceedings and check legal juggling. It would diminish injustice and introduce common sense, which is all but banished from common-law jurisprudence.
 
Quote by William Kunstler Former ACLU director and co-founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights Jury Nullification in Conscience Cases
Historic cases apparently conflict with the court’s approach in Berrigan.  More than two centuries ago, Andrew Hamilton addressed a colonial jury in New York in defense of the printer, John Peter Zenger.  Zenger was, under the law as it then existed and the facts of his case, clearly guilty of the crime of seditious libel with which he was charged, yet his lawyer was permitted to urge the twelve men sitting in judgement upon him “to see with their own eyes, to hear with their own ears, and to make use of their consciences and understanding in judging of the lives, liberties, or estates of their fellow subjects.”
           
Because Andrew Hamilton was permitted by this colonial judge to appeal to the conscience of the jury his client was acquitted and the great principle of freedom of the press became one of our most cherished traditions.  Yet today, in a theoretically more enlightened age, American juries cannot be told that under the law they have the power to decide any criminal case as they see fit, and that no one can question their decisions, no matter how contrary to law and fact they might be.  This produces an interesting anomaly:  juries possess the power, but they cannot be told of it as they are of every other aspect of the juridical process.
 
The law, ancient and modern, was explicit on the inalienable power of jurors to follow their consciences, if that was the decisional route they desired to take.  

Related Posts:
FIJA ~ Jury Rights Day ~ KrisAnne Hall Explains Jury Nullification
Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors in the Trial of Ammon Bundy & Six Others

Related Posts:
LTE ~ Not My Governor
LTE ~ Participation Trophies for All the Spoiled Brats
LTE ~ Election Reflections & the Legislative Session
LTE ~ Open Letter to Mayor and Councilors of Coos Bay on Wastewater Treatment
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
LTE ~ Occasionally the Righteous can Still Win
LTE ~ Rigging Elections Using Three Proven Mechanisms
LTE ~ Help Support the Right to Pursue Fishing, Hunting, & Plinking
LTE ~ Irrational Opposition to the Patriot Movement in Saint Helens, OR
LTE ~ An Open Letter to the Mayor of Coos Bay Crystal Shoji from Fred Kirby
LTE ~ Mark Daily Running on Two Issues, User Rate Fees & Best Available Tech
LTE ~ Judge Candidate Ryan Hughes was Libeled & Slandered Anonymously  
LTE ~ Coos Bay Wastewater at a Turning Point
LTE ~ North Bend Airport Manager Might be "Nuts"