FIJActivist. the. FIJAconV November 7-9 Fort Lauderdale. Newsletter of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

Transcription

1 FIJA Volume 15, Issue 3 Fall 2003 FIJActivist the Newsletter of the Fully Informed Jury Association 1 IMPROPER VOIR DIRE... 2 JURY DUTY: BEST EVER... 3 ECONOMIST LETTER... 3 SPARF V. UNITED STATES... 4 SUMMERLIN V. STEWART... 4 THE JURY BOX... 4 FIJACTIVIST Q & A... 5 JASON VALE CASE... 5 BLUMNER LETTER... 6 FIJACONV AGENDA/ REGISTRATION FORM.7 FIJAconV November 7-9 Fort Lauderdale The Role of the Jury in our Society Join us for the special Defense Attorney CLE and National Conference of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) on November 7, 8, & 9, We begin Friday with a special Continuing Legal Education seminar for defense attorneys, Winning Through Jury Persuasion. This CLE is approved by the Florida Bar for 9 CLER Credits, including one Credit for Ethics. Very few defense attorneys understand the function or strategy of a jury nullification defense. Join us not only to add this powerful tool to the repertoire of your strategies, but also to give your clients an additional edge to escape the tyranny of government courts, and to learn new ways to offer the best defense. After the CLE, stay and bring your clients for two days of information, arguments, discussion, and indepth looks at the jury, jury independence, and jury power. If you want to know how to mount an effective nullification defense and win! come to this CLE! Develop solid arguments against opposition to jury nullification. Learn more about how to protect your rights in the courtroom. Share new and effective strategies for teaching jury power to others. Listen to success stories on activist projects around the nation. Join in a strategy and issues session to define the focus and activities of state and local FIJA groups. CLE presenters include: Barry Beroset and Bruce Lyons on Opening and Closing Statements John Wesley Hall, noted defense attorney, on Ethics of a Nullification Defense David Brody, PhD, JD, on Protecting the Jury Clay Conrad on Theories and Themes of a Nullification Defense Paul Grant on Getting Evidence Admitted Randolph Jonakait on Jury Selection and Profiles Janice Orr and Bob Bernhard on Jury Empowerment and Persuasion Hugo Rodriguez, Federal Public Defender, on What the Feds Won t Tell You On Saturday, FIJAconV opens to everyone. Panels of academics, attorneys, and activists discuss nullification issues. Speakers focus on questions of the role of the jury, restoration of the power of the jury, and the impact of jury independence, jury pardon, and jury nullification. Sunday, the focus shifts from academics to activism, with special speakers and a strategy and issues forum. Speakers for the general conference include: Hon. Ken Hoyt, Federal Judge, Southern District of Texas, Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: Evolution of a Doctrine, Randolph Jonakait, law professor at New York Law School and author of The American Jury System, David Brody, Professor of Criminal Law, Iloilo Marguerité Jones, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association, James Joseph Duane, constitutional scholar from Regent Law School, and Bernie Baltic, organizational consultant. FIJA is focusing on four issues for the next three years: Second Amendment rights at issue in jury cases, medical marijuana information as presented to or withheld from juries, jury downsizing to six from twelve, and the resultant impact on the number of convictions as opposed to acquittals. Plan to stay through Sunday evening for the Justice Forum, when many area and regional freedom activists will examine issues and priorities for community, legal, and initiative actions. I hope that you will be able to join us for this exciting and interesting FIJAconV. For more information, please visit our web site at or or call our office at any time. I look forward to seeing you in Fort Lauderdale! Yours for liberty, Iloilo M. Jones

2 2 FIJA California Chief Judge Scolds Trial Judge for Improper Voir Dire Action Remember these dates: November 7-9, 2003 Remember this place: Fort Lauderdale, FL Remember to be there! The FIJActivist Newsletter of the Fully Informed Jury Association Iloilo Marguerite Jones Executive Director/Editor Post Office Box 5570 Helena, MT Phone (406) The FIJActivist is published quarterly, $25 annual subscription, by the Fully Informed Jury Association. The staff hereby grants permission to reprint any part or all of this publication provided that bylined articles, graphics and photos are credited to their author(s), and the FIJActivist is referenced. Submit all materials for publication to: FIJActivist Iloilo Jones, Editor P. O. Box 5570 Helena, MT Send to: Copy should be submitted in the body of the and not as an attachment. Postmaster: Please send all address corrections to FIJA, P.O. Box 5570, Helena, MT Non-Profit postage paid at Helmville or Helena, Montana, and at additional mailing offices. Chief Justice Ronald George, of the California Supreme Court narrowly voted to reverse a death sentence in a 1990 murder case because the trial judge tainted the penalty phase when he dismissed a prospective juror. George s 4-3 opinion criticized now-retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Kalustian, calling the dismissal inexplicable and disappointing and urging presiding over murder trials to make a special effort to be apprised of and to follow the well-established principles and protocols pertaining to the death-qualification of a capital jury. As the present case demonstrates, an inadequate or incomplete examination of potential jurors can have disastrous consequences as to the validity of a judgment, George wrote in People v. Heard, 03 C.D.O.S Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno concurred in the decision, which remanded the penalty phase of the case for retrial. Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, defending Kalustian and his handling of the case. With all due respect, she wrote, these criticisms not only unfairly disparage a conscientious bench officer but highlight the majority s own failure to impose the self-restraint required of a reviewing court in these circumstances. James Matthew Heard was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1990 torturemurder of his girlfriend s 11-year-old daughter. During voir dire, a venireman identified only as Juror H was asked whether his views on capital punishment would prevent him from imposing a death sentence if the law requires it. Juror H indicated that he might be influenced by psychological factors in the defendant s background, but also emphasized he would do whatever the law states. Over defense objections, Judge Kalustian dismissed Juror H for cause. The Supreme Court upheld the jury s guilty verdict, but said it was compelled to reverse the death sentence. There were no grounds for dismissing Juror H, George wrote, and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the error is not subject to harmless-error analysis, but is reversible per se. George heaped blame on Kalustian, criticizing his imprecise questioning and pointing out that judges have plenty of time to make careful decisions during jury selection. When a trial judge makes a readily avoidable error under the circumstances before us, the public perception of justice suffers, George lamented. In footnotes, the chief justice observed that numerous courses and a plethora of treatises and handbooks could have steered Kalustian in the right direction. In her dissent, Brown argued that the court should defer to the trial judge s handling of the case. She noted, for example, that Kalustian put in the record that Juror H had taken a long time to respond to a question about his death penalty views. In my view, it is entirely reasonable that, in light of the voir dire including an evaluation of credibility and demeanor the court could conclude that Prospective Juror H. s view would substantially impair the discharge of his duties, Brown wrote. The defense attorney who brought the appeal said the California Supreme Court had not reversed a death case on similar grounds since Heard was a perfect case to argue the juror issue, said Jonathan Milberg, a Pasadena attorney who was appointed to handle the direct appeal. Defense attorneys often argue that a prospective juror has been wrongly excluded, but usually the juror makes an arguably biased statement in the transcripts, he said. This time you had a juror who said time and time again that he could vote for death, Milberg said. Milberg said he was surprised by the opinion s criticism of Kalustian and called the judge s mistake understandable. I have always a huge respect for judges, Milberg said. They are on the front line reading questionnaires and questioning huge amounts of potential jurors. I think that most trial judges are confused about jury selection in capital cases. The deputy attorney general who argued the case, M. Susan Sullivan Pithey, said she was disappointed by the decision, but had not decided whether to ask the justices to rehear the case.

3 FIJA JURY DUTY: THE BEST SYSTEM FOR JUSTICE EVER DEVISED by Gordon Claycomb The author, longtime Antelope Valley resident, a retired aerospace engineer, now a consultant. He is a member of FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association. To mark the September 5 anniversary of Jury Rights Day, he recounts his own experience. I finally made it into the jury box this year but I had to move to Nevada first. In California, whenever I had been summoned, I always got excused when the lawyers found out I was an engineer or had read Lysander Spooner s An Essay on the Trial by Jury. I think lawyers and judges are uncomfortable with people who think analytically and make up their own minds. In fact, I m sure of it. That s why I m writing this. For Judge Hardcastle s court, Las Vegas, the lawyers asked me only the standard questions, so I was accepted. One of a judge s standard questions is some version of this: Are you willing to judge just the facts in the case and not the applicability of the law as I shall explain it to you? I said yes to that one. I knew it was designed to screen out people who are aware of jury nullification. I believed my answer was honest, because I intended to do just as the judge asked unless it turned out the law was inappropriate in this particular case or there were mitigating circumstances. Say no to that one, and you won t get to serve on a jury. Lo and behold, I was empaneled for the first time in my life. Unexpected emotions flooded me; I d rather be anywhere than here. I don t want this responsibility. How can I get out of this? This may take too long. They aren t paying me enough for my time. How can I check the stock market? Not to worry all that fades away once testimony begins and you start weighing evidence. Besides, someone has to do it, and better you than someone totally unfamiliar with the powers that jurors can exercise. The case was a charge of kidnapping and rape against a stocky, swarthy man in his mid-20s, whose alleged victim was a young woman above Nevada s legal age of consent. After we heard all of the testimony and saw all the evidence, the judge read the law to us, explained what beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty meant (and did a good job of clarifying and emphasizing that absolute certainty is not required) and then reminded us again that we had sworn to not judge the law but only the facts, and whether or not the law was violated based on these facts and the evidence. This time, the judge added some juice to her admonitions which I must paraphrase as I could hardly believe my ears: Remember, there have been cases where after the trial the court has had occasion to reach out to jurors in regards to their behavior, so you are still beholden to the court. I m not sure she used the word beholden, but that was the message, and she said it twice. (You d think I could remember it exactly, but the veiled threat in her tone threw me off so much because I wanted to shout out that we, as jury members, are not subject to any action by you or anyone else in the justice system at any level!) The deliberation was a great experience in the fairness and energy of the vast majority of members of the jury. The exception was one woman (out of 8) who had decided the defendant was guilty before we entered the deliberation room, apparently because of buyer s remorse over a mutually agreedupon sexual encounter in her own past. Anyhow, the jurors were marvelous (especially the 7 women who, by the way, were furious at the irrational one), and we ended up after 6 days of hard work hung 10 to 2 for acquittal. (The second holdout was an elderly man who had switched his vote several times.) The defendant was released 2 weeks later as the state clearly had no case. A few footnotes: The defendant, who was from out-of-state, had been held in jail for 18 months as a flight risk (so much for a speedy trial ). A police officer tried to cover up the fact that he delayed writing his report (which conflicted with the testimony of others) for 3 days after the arrest (so much for police veracity ). All in all, I found jury duty to be an awesome responsibility. Jurors know they are dealing with other people s lives and fortunes. It is even more important when one understands the jury s right to nullify bad or inapplicable laws the citizen s final peaceful defense against an overly zealous government. 3 To the Editor, The Economist Sir: Your leader on our administration s disdain for our once-lauded justice system brings to mind one of the Facts set forth to prove the Injuries and Usurpations of absolute Tyranny in that excellent document of July 4, 1776: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury. Having observed the tyranny imposed on a people through deprivation of trial by jury, the Founding Fathers took care to protect this right no less than three times in our Bill of Rights. The intent of the jury system is more than citizens to mete out apt punishment to neighbors. The jury provides us the means to protect each other from tyrannical abuses of power by the government. The authors of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the authors of your own Magna Charta, saw Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. (Thomas Jefferson, 1789). That anchor has slipped its hold, and our government is tacking on a course set by expediency of the moment. Yet, not even the storm of tyranny should be strong enough to cast adrift our ship of state from the strong hold of constitutional law, and yet so it seems. Apparent to all is the attack against our right to trial by jury and government s flagrant disregard for the intent and scope of this bulwark of justice. Your own country only recently survived attempts to erode the rights to trial by jury. Japan endeavors to enact a fair constitutional basis for their jury, understanding how fine a treasure this jury system is. Sadly, as the world searches for models of governance based on law, it must look elsewhere than to the United States for a working example. We continue efforts to reverse the erosion of our constitutional right to trial by jury. Tyranny, no matter under what guise, has no place in an open society nor in a country dedicated to the rule of law. Iloilo Marguerité Jones

4 4 The Jury decides the Law, i.e., Jury Nullification Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) laws.findlaw.com/us/156/ 51.html 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, by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take [156 U.S. 51, 65] upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny. James Monroe ( ), 5th US President Hunter s Hundred Eighty-Fourth Rule: Any time you re feeling low about how little you re accomplishing, cheer yourself up by reading your enemy s propaganda about you. SUMMERLIN V. STEWART, No (9th Cir. September 02, 2003) A Federal Appellate Court Voids 100 Death Sentences in Arizona, Idaho, and Montana Because They Were Imposed by Judges, Not Juries, In Contravention of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: [PDF File] data2/circs/9th/ v2p.pdf Cf. Ring v. Arizona, No (U.S.S.C. 06/24/2002) (The state of Arizona s enumerated aggravating factors which allow for imposition of the death penalty, amount to the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense, which must be found by a jury under Apprendi, and may not be determined by a sentencing judge.); laws.findlaw.com/us/000/ html N.B. It is the office of the judge to instruct the jury in points of law of the jury to decide matters of fact {Ad questionem facti non respondent judices: ad questionem legis non respondent juratores}; Judges do not answer questions of fact; juries do not answer questions of law {Ad quæstiones facti non respondent judices; ad questiones legis non respondent juratores}; The judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts {De jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent}; Nam: The law arises out of the fact {Ex facto jus oritur}; Cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct (1986); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 1995); Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 420, 939 P2d 608 (1997); Richardson v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, ; CA A (Or. 07/07/1999); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); ORCP 47 C; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Sed vide: Jury Nullification; The Right to Say No, 45 So.Calif. Law Review 168 (1972); Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 433 (1793) 3 Dall. 1 (1794); and that class of authority, reason, custom and usage, infra. THE JURY BOX FIJA Jury Power in Action On August 8 of this year, a jury of twelve returned a verdict that is heralded as a victory for the power of the jury in the United States. In a Memphis Federal Court Ms. Vernice B. Kuglin, a pilot who earlier had a conversation with our own strong supporter and activist Attorney R. J. Tavel, was found not guilty of six counts of Tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. Ms. Kuglin s Attorneys Larry Becraft and Robert G. Berhoft stated Ms. Kuglin had been indicted seven months ago and had refused any plea bargaining compromises with the federal IRS prosecutors. Ms. Kuglin s trial began August 4 with jury selection. Trial testimony began Tuesday. In her testimony, Ms. Kuglin testified that as early as 1995 she began to send a series of letters to the IRS requesting they inform her of what law required her to pay the Individual Income Tax. Ms. Kuglin told the jury she has never received an answer to any of her requests for this information. On Friday afternoon, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts. After the jury had been excused, the U.S. Attorney demanded that the Judge order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes, and obey the law. The Judge replied Sir, I don t work for the IRS. Jury Rights Day in Lancaster Jury Rights Day was a big success this year. We handed out a few hundred flyers at the Lancaster courthouse. The mayors of Palmdale and Lancaster sent proclamations. The AV Press showed up and snapped pictures but didn t run a story. (Maybe you d like to write to them and mention that you think Jury Rights Day is pretty important!) Adelphia s Channel 3 news showed up, filmed and aired a 1-minute report with an extensive sound bite from Jason Gonella. You can download and watch the TV report from a.mov (2.8 MB QuickTime movie). Thanks to those who showed up. Richard Huemer, secretary of AVLP. See Proclamation on page 2.

5 FIJA Dear Ms. Jones: I have noticed in many of your writings both in the newsletter and on your web site that you don t seem to care at all about civil jury cases. Since a lot more actual money is at stake in civil jury cases, why don t you pay more attention to putting FIJA efforts there, where you could do some real good? People who lose huge sums of money because the jury is not informed would appreciate and help FIJA if you would help them. JR Dear JR: The United States of America has the largest percentage of its people in prison of any country on Earth. By best estimates, far more than half of the people now in prison are there for breaking government-authored laws where there was no victim. Of these prisoners, more and more are there because some government official made an arbitrary decision to push for maximum time in some drug-related or no-victim Second Amendment case. Many of the people in prison are innocent of breaking any law. Many of these people appeared before intimidated jurors who were afraid if they did not vote the way the judge clearly wanted them to vote, they would be punished in turn. All three groups of these prisoners are now serving time because they were found guilty of breaking a criminal law. These prisoners were prosecuted by powerful, deep-pocket government officials at trials where government officials presided, and where the venue was a government building and courtroom, all designed to intimidate jurors and bend them to the will of the government employees. The non-violent, victimless prisoners, now locked away from family, livelihood, friends, and community, exist in the savage darkness of a caged community, where beatings, rape, and hopelessness define the boundaries of their dim existence. When juries know they can save their fellow citizens from this violent agony by the simple remedy of refusing to convict those who have committed victimless crimes, when jurors know they have the power and right to say no to a bad law and to the FIJActivist Q & A misuse of the law, FIJA will address civil jury trials. When each jury member knows he or she has the right to vote according to conscience, without regard for the threats and exhortations of judges and prosecutors, when our prison population again reflects an intent to protect society rather than to bend us, its citizens and masters, to government s capricious and vicious will, than FIJA will turn to look at civil cases where actual money is lost. For Liberty, Iloilo Marguerité Jones Hello FIJA: I am absolutely opposed to the jury system; it is a legal atavism from the middle ages, devised long before we had a professional bar and codified law. That trained legal experts bring matters to be settled before 12 ignorant, impressionable, unlearned people hand-picked for their stupidity is incredible in these modern times. If I can find it, I ll send you an editorial about the jury system I wrote. If I were called to jury duty, I d express my opinion about juries and the legal profession in general. If I were still impaneled, I d refuse to vote either way thus nullifying the system itself! JWills, NJ Sir: The reasons you dislike the jury system are the reasons it is the most valuable institution in America, and is the heart of American democracy. The trained legal experts are jaded, pompous buffoons - and I speak as a lawyer. They all have their own axe to grind, and are never able to look at one case in isolation without comparing it to the others they ve been involved in. Statistics show that jurors have slightly more education than the average American. They certainly do not fit your description of them. Jurors tend to be serious, focused, and to take their role more seriously and with more integrity than any of the professionals in the system. The choices being trial by jury, or trial by government, trial by jury is the only serious choice. As one noted lawyer Q&A continued on page 8 The Jason Vale Case From Ralph Fucetola, JD [mailto:ralph.fucetola@usa.net] Subject: Jury Nullification and the FDA 5 In 2000 Jason Vale, Christian Bros. was ordered by a New York Federal judge to stop selling apricot seeds as an unapproved treatment for cancer. The FDA says he disobeyed this order and has put him in jail. What is noteworthy is that he was denied bail on appeal because of Jury Nullification. Says the FDA press release: The jury announced the guilty verdicts on July 21, 2003, following the conclusion of a week long trial. During the trial, supporters of Vale had handed out FIJA leaflets to persons who entered the courthouse, including a number of the jurors who were deciding the contempt case against Vale. The leaflet told jurors they had a constitutional right to ignore the evidence and the Court s instructions if they so chose. This incident was one of the factors taken into consideration by Judge Gleeson in ordering Vale held without bail pending his sentencing. topics/news/2003/ NEW00927.html Note please the FDA does not say there is no constitutional right of the jury to make a finding of not guilty despite the law and the facts. That s because there is such a right and it is clearly a threat to the powers-that-be. Fully Informed Jurors - Ralph Fucetola, JD

6 6 No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute. Alexander Hamilton Source: Federalist #78 Liberty is not a matter of words, but a positive and important condition of society. Its greatest safeguard after placing its foundations in a popular base, is in the checks and balances imposed on the public servants. James Fenimore Cooper ( ) Source: The American Democrat, 1838 The constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens. Wendell L. Wilkie ( ) Source: An American Program, 1944 Liberty Quotes Dear Mrs. Blumner: Your article on the harsh measures included in the Amber Bill points once more to the loss of our once-lauded justice system and brings to mind one of the Facts set forth to prove the Injuries and Usurpations of absolute Tyranny in that excellent document of July 4, 1776: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury. Having thus observed the tyranny imposed on a people when deprived of trial by jury, the Founding Fathers took particular care to ensure this right no less than three times in the Bill of Rights. The intent of the jury system is to do much more than allow citizens to mete out apt punishment to their neighbors. The jury system particularly provides citizens with the means to protect each other from tyrannical abuses of power by the government. Thus did the authors of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the authors of the Magna Charta, see Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. (Thomas Jefferson, 1789). The anchor has slipped its hold, and our government is now thoughtlessly tacking on a course set by the expediency of the moment. Not even the storm of outrage at criminal acts should be strong enough to cast adrift our ship of state from the strong hold of constitutional law, and yet so it seems. Apparent to all now observing the usurpations is, in particular, its attack against the right to trial by jury and the flagrant disregard for the intent and scope of this bulwark or justice. Tyranny, no matter under what guise, has no place in an open society nor in a country dedicated to the rule of law. The intent of trial by jury is that of jury independence to judge the law as well as the facts in any case. Jurors have the absolute power to decide if the law being applied is a just law, if it is properly applied in each case, and if the defendant should be found innocent because of a bad law. Jurors have the right to understand the sentence that will be imposed under their verdict. The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored law, but TITLE TO COME by Iloilo Marguerite Jones FIJA rather to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical laws imposed by power-crazed government. Jurors have both a duty and a responsibility to ensure that a just verdict is rendered, and they must take into account the facts of the case, any mitigating circumstances, and the merits of the law and its application in each individual case. They must examine the results of their verdict if they are to administer the law as an instrument of justice and of order. The power and right of jurors to assess the merits of the law has been established since before our Constitution was written, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. This right has been affirmed continually over the years, and never repealed. Should it be repealed, the people would still retain the right to nullify bad laws as one of our primary protections against oppressive and punitive prosecutions, and in fact then would be compelled to do so. Jurors, as the representatives of the people and the community, hold no agenda during any trial, and most certainly not the government s agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges and arresting officers, as well as the forensic investigators in most cases, are all a part of and paid by government, with their personal power bases to build and their personal careers to protect through the productivity of successful prosecutions that result in convictions. Jurors are not at all vested and therefore far less arbitrary. The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when expressed through the enforcement of laws that usurp the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyrannical laws by refusing to convict those being persecuted by government. Thus did our Founding Fathers plan for the jury to do, and expected that jurors would in fact exercise this power without question. Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty before we resort to arms, and thus our best defense without loss of life. I welcome the opportunity to talk with you further about the role of the jury in the justice system of our nation, and to provide more information if you would like.

7 FIJA The Fully Informed Jury Association Fifth Annual Conference November 7-9, 2003 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Learn about independent juries, the power of jury nullification, of trial jurors power to base their verdict on conscientious considerations, and about putting the merits of the law as well as the facts on trial. Discuss the role of the juror in our society. Recent court verdicts point up the need for trial attorneys and the public to understand this important tool of liberty. 7 S C H ED U LE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7 CLE Seminar Winning With Nullification SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8 Conference opens to all. A panel of attorneys and academics discuss nullification issues from their perspective. Saturday s luncheon will feature a panel discussion. Saturday s dinner banquet will feature a special guest speaker. SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9 Focus shifts from academics to activism. Speakers will discuss a range of topics. C L E CLE SEMINAR WINNING THROUGH JURY PERSUASION - Sponsored by FIJA Designed for criminal defense attorneys. Approved for 8-9 General Florida CLER Credits. Topics and presenters will be announced when confirmed, but include: Ethics of a Nullification Defense Informing and Empowering the Jury Forensic Jury Persuasion Opening Statements and Closing Arguments What Wins Cases Jury Persuasion and Empowerment Presentations will be live, with related course material available at the Seminar and by mail. Continental Breakfast 7:30 a.m. Registration 8:00 a.m. Seminar 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. All events held at the Fort Lauderdale Marriott North 6650 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL FIJAconV special room rate if registered before October 23, 2003: $99.00/night, visit R EG I S T R A TI O N I would like to make a contribution to FIJA: $10 $25 $50 $100 Other $ CLE Seminar Registration Fee: Attorneys $179 NACDL/FIJA $149 Public Defenders $89 Audit $69 FIJAconV Registration Fee: $ FIJAconV Meals Package: $ FIJAconV Banquet with Registration: Beef Fish Vegetarian $65 FIJAconV Banquet only: Beef Fish Vegetarian $75 Early FIJAconV Registration, Meals and Banquet Package (until September 15, 2003): $ TOTAL DUE Name: Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Payment: Check Visa MasterCard Credit Card Number: Exp. Date: / Mail this registration form along with payment to: FIJA PO Box 5570 Helena, MT Visit for more details.

8 8 PO Box 59 Helmville, MT Address Service Requested NON-PROFIT ORG. FIJA PRESORT STANDARD US POSTAGE PAID BUTTE, MT PERMIT #33 stated, a bench trial is just a slow plea of guilty. The Founders did not guarantee trial by jury three times between the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights for nothing. The trial by jury is, in Jefferson s terms, the only method by which a government can be kept to the principles of its constitution. Absent trial by jury government is freed from allowing its citizens to view its inner workings or to exercise any veto over its injustices. Clay S. Conrad Greetings Iloilo: Why are you so concerned about the Second Amendment? Isn t it enough to be concerned about jury rights? The Second Amendment is truly under attack, but is that FIJA s business? I would think FIJA has enough to do with educating people about Jury Power. DBK Hi DBK: Good question. FIJA is, fundamentally, about liberty. Fully informed juries insure liberty as long as they have the power to protect fellow citizens from abuses of power. It takes only one informed juror to hang a case, or to persuade other jurors to return a not guilty verdict. Yet I do recognize that government bureaucrats/totalitarians work daily to deprive us of this protection. There are two reasons why I have picked the Second Amendment, or more specifically, Second Amendment jury cases, as an issue for FIJA: (1) You are quite right that the Second Amendment is one of the Rights most under attack by the government and the press. This is, given the mentality of the present structure of our government, understood: guns give power and control to the individual, and to groups of individuals, who are outside of the government/statist sphere of control. Since most of the confiscatory laws and statutes in the United States are enforceable only through being backed with the unveiled threat of violence, depriving the citizens of defense FIJActivist Q & A continued from page 5 therefore makes absolute sense to totalitarians. Therefore, everything that FIJA is able to do through jury education and the promotion of jury independence to protect the free exercise of the Second Amendment is not only reasonable, but a responsibility. (2) The second reason is sadly and simply a reality check on the present course of our institutions; when all powers are stripped from our juries, a trend we observe daily through the pervasive erosion of the jury s power to be able to offer protection to fellow citizens through nullification, then we will have only one means of recourse left open to us to guard and protect the ability to exercise our unalienable rights, and if we are by then unarmed, even that road will be closed. Thus, I will work diligently while I am with FIJA to protect the tools we may need to carry out Plan B should the time arrive when Plan A is no longer in the least reasonable, and that time seems fast approaching, given the feedback we witness daily. Sincerely, For Liberty in our Lifetime, Iloilo Marguerité Jones It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses. Thomas Jefferson ( ), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President