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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]   
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