i think maybe you just overthought this. it’s clear you think (as i do) that the whole ‘drug war’ is a crock/farce/police-state-trial-balloon, so you can’t have too much respect left (as i don’t) for the minions of the system that operates and maintains and squeals yearly for
ever-bigger budgets to expand their farce.

so just lie to them. hell, they’re lying to YOU.
they KNOW good and well they have no right to
instruct you, the juror, to follow the law as they
tell you to. they know good & well the centuries-
old common-law traditions of jury nullification.
they know good & well who peter zenger was.

so lie right back to them. you didn’t acquit the
defendant because of some silly idea you had about
drug laws being “wrong”, your honor! heck no!
you just thought the prosecution hadn’t proved him
“guilty….reasonable doubt!” that’s all!

tell the truth to your friends, family, people who
you hope to influence to do the same? sure!

but when you speak to the oppressors?
lie your butt off, and don’t give it a second
thought.

barring that, i liked the earlier post, where the other fellow suggested that you just “changed your
mind” while you were doing your duty as a juror.

If you’re willing to lie to the judge, are you also willing to lie to your fellow jurors?

Suppose that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt (with physical evidence, video recordings, etc.) in your mind that a cancer victim was growing pot for medicinal purposes. Would you be willing to lie to the other jurors, saying something like, “I have a master’s degree in botany and that wasn’t marijuana, it was a northern everglade fern — any botanist could see that.”

Suppose you knew that your fellow jurors would be swayed by an argument from authority (but not by an argument against the drug war) — would you lie and manipulate to save this cancer victim from jail?

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. 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 of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.� (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

Any plainer and it devolves into baby-talk.

Jurors aren’t supposed to determine the rightness of the law, rather to act as witnesses to make sure that the law was in fact broken. The rightness of the law is for the constitutional courts and congress to decide, not the criminal and civil courts.

The founding fathers would have disagreed with you. John Adams said of jury nullification, “It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, said “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

The jury is one of the most important checks on governmental tyranny, and the Founders knew that. It’s a shame that people have become so willing to abandon moral judgment to their rulers.

“Number Nine: Do you have strong feelings about drugs or drug dealing that might prevent you from objectively applying the law to the facts of the case? [She pauses, and then, as an afterthought] … or about the drug laws, I should add.”

Answer: “I cannot apply the law to the facts of this case until I hear the facts and the law presented. I will not decide about the case either way until after I hear the facts and law presented.”

It’s a true statement unless you have already made up your mind to vote guilty or not guilty without knowing what the facts and the law are. It is a true statement even if you think the law that will be presented is abhorrent. It is true because you haven’t yet heard the law and the facts fully presented.

It may bring more questions. It may get you peremptorily challenged. It won’t get you removed for cause because you have not demonstrated any prejudice in the case. As a general rule, if either attorney’s questions are offensive to your basic sense of justice, it is better to cost them a peremptory challenge than to let them get you removed for cause.

So answer every question in such a way that your answer is true, and your answer will not support a challenge for cause by demonstrating prejudice either way in the case. Remember: you have not heard the case presented yet, so you cannot decide anything about it.

If either attorney becomes too offensive in grilling you about your philosophical and political beliefs, answer the question with a question: “I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to decide the case now, before the facts and law are presented?”

They will rephrase the question, possibly becoming so offensive that other prospective jurors will be offended.

Always be pleasant and polite, and don’t be bothered that either attorney or the judge will think you are as dumb as a post. You are there to hear the facts and law presented and to decide based on that. You are not there to show anybody how brilliant or well informed you are. Worst case is that other members of the voir dire panel will catch on to what the attorney is trying to do — get you (and them) to decide the case before hearing it fully.

If you demonstrate some courage, and absolutely refuse to give any opinion on the case before you hear it presented, there is a chance that the next juror questioned will follow your example.

In the jury room, never mention jury nullification. Never. Discuss whether you found some witness credible. Did he hesitate before saying something? Did he have shifty eyes and a sneaky demeanor on the stand? Did he say something that in your ordinary experience is highly unlikely, like performing a superhuman feat, or seeing something in the dark or through a wall?

If you believe a witness lied in any statement he made, you are entitled to believe he lied in every statement he made. Once you don’t believe a witness, you have ample reason to vote whatever way that would imply.

2 I think the very issue of potential theft/fraud etc. indicates a major reason not to vote for jury nullification even in cases of laws which you disagree with and find unjust. While I personally think that narcotics should be legalized, given that they are not, it is important that the law be applied as effectively, universally, and objectively as possible. The major harm of drug illegalization lies in the penumbral increase of crime (particularly violent crime) around the drug trade and the negative consequences that has for the communities which it effects. By letting a drug dealer go free, the nullifying juror makes the illegal sale of drugs more safe, granting more of an incentive for more people to enter a business which is intensely harmful to the surrounding community. While it is ultimately the criminalization of drug use which causes this unfortunate cycle, that fundamental fact is the not the issue in jury box over which you have control. Your decision is whether or not to apply this general law in a specific case. I take seriously the objection to this view that in convicting this person, you are punishing them without retributive warrant and using them as a means to the end of community safety. Ultimately, though, this person is engaging in conduct which he is not willing to pay the legal price for and which in the current context is harmful to those around him.

You are a drug warrior of the lesser kind. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

But, perhaps instead of trying to be a smart ass by dismissing my point as a “non-argument” why don’t you grow a pair and actually address my point: namely that advocating secretive jury nullification means that you also advocate KKK members right to vote against convicting people of killing blacks.

Because your point is both silly and wrong. There is no such thing as the right to violate the rights of another.

Unless your position is that only decent, fairminded people who agree with you should engage in jury nullification and everyone else shouldn’t. I will agree with you there, but that is reasoning of a young child.

Unsurprisingly, your interpretation is incorrect.