New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If enough juries acquitted or hung themselves, the state would soon be unable to enforce the SAFE Act.
Thankfully, this prosecution of the innocent-of-any-crime Morgan is in Orleans County, the most rabid anti-SAFE Act county in the state-- where every municipality in that county has passed a resolution demanding the repeal of the SAFE Act.

How Jury Nullification Would Work in the Brenden Morgan Anti- SAFE Act Case
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
...... Scary part is better chance of having HPV.

Eerily similar; something that just won't go away kinda like the Safe Act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
The Prosecution will release any juror who says they will not find him guilty/oppose SAFE.
The Judge will likely tell all jurors they can't nullify (false, but the Judge can say that.)
Can it happen? Sure.
Is it likely? About the same odds as SAFE being repealed in our lifetime. (Same as a snowballs chance, in hell)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
The Prosecution will release any juror who says they will not find him guilty/oppose SAFE.
The Judge will likely tell all jurors they can't nullify (false, but the Judge can say that.)
Can it happen? Sure.
Is it likely? About the same odds as SAFE being repealed in our lifetime. (Same as a snowballs chance, in hell)
You don't tell the prosecution your intentions. He has no right to ask how you will vote..especially before a trial/any evidence is presented...otherwise...why have a trial in the first place.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
You don't tell the prosecution your intentions. He has no right to ask how you will vote..especially before a trial/any evidence is presented...otherwise...why have a trial in the first place.....
You've never been selected, and been interviewed, eh?

This happens in most any case... "voir dire"

Both Prosecution and Defense have the right to interview and challenge/release potential jurors.

Usually, jurors are sworn in voir dire, and there can be penalties for a deliberate, untruthful answer. (not likely, though)

They can ask how you feel about the death penalty in those cases, why not how you feel about SAFE...

IANAL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
You don't tell the prosecution your intentions. He has no right to ask how you will vote..especially before a trial/any evidence is presented...otherwise...why have a trial in the first place.....
Not true sir.
The JUDGE will ask every single prospective Juror if he promises, under Oath, to follow the Law as the Judge gives it to the Jury.
Any Juror who answers NO will be excused.

Any Juror who swears to the affirmative and can later be shown to be a nullification advocate (by what they have posted here for instance) is subject to prosecution for perjury.

The fact is, jury nullification is NOT the law of this State. Does it happen? Sure, in the Bronx all the time where they refuse to convict "people of color" for "past injustices". A clever lawyer can get that into a case in many ways.

But here, that is very unlikely to happen. The prosecution will put on an expert to show the gun is operable and considered an "AW". The defendant will NOT be allowed to argue anything about Second Amendment rights. The only questions before the Jury will be:
1. Did he possess the firearm.
2. Was it operable.

Expect a deal to be made for a plea. The lawyer will probably advise the defendant that a trial can result in jail time, he would recommend that he made a no jail plea bargain. That is simply the reality of the system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
You've never been selected, and been interviewed, eh?

Both Prosecution and Defense have the right to interview and release potential jurors.
I do not know how to do brain surgery, no matter how much I read up on it on the Internet.

Many of the people here constantly preaching "jury nullification" have apparently never been in a Court Room. It IS possible, in fact in MY opinion is is the Law of the Land (because of the requirement for a JURY TRIAL, which infers that a Jury can do any damn thing it pleases) but it is NOT the law of this State and is quite unusual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,339 Posts
Not true sir.

The fact is, jury nullification is NOT the law of this State.
This again? You are incorrect, it's the law of the entire country. I agree if you admit to being a proponent of it you might not be on the jury, however jury nullification is the law of the land no matter what a corrupt NYS judge says.

"In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn't have the power, or that they couldn't be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial."

"How come I haven't heard about this before?
Because for almost a century, judges have been failing to inform juries about this right and responsibility, and have gone to great lengths to keep defense attorneys from informing juries about jury nullification. In the 1895 case Sparf v. US, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform juries of their right & responsibility to nullify laws. Sometimes, in direct opposition to the purpose of a jury, a judge will instruct a jury to apply the law as it is given to them whether they agree with the law or not. In some situations, the judge will call a mistrial if an attempt by the defense attorney to inform the jury about this important right and responsibility. Why would they do such a thing?

In short, because it takes power away from the government and gives it to the people."

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 Adams, 1771"

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, 1804
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
The orleans county da is not going to press a safe act issue. That will not be good for his career. But the thing is its he didn't get the felony charge. This isn't going to county court it's going in a small town court. He will get a sweet plea to something really small on his record and go home with a small fine. No jury will be involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
This again? You are incorrect, it's the law of the entire country. I agree if you admit to being a proponent of it you might not be on the jury, however jury nullification is the law of the land no matter what a corrupt NYS judge says.

"In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn't have the power, or that they couldn't be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial."

"How come I haven't heard about this before?
Because for almost a century, judges have been failing to inform juries about this right and responsibility, and have gone to great lengths to keep defense attorneys from informing juries about jury nullification. In the 1895 case Sparf v. US, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform juries of their right & responsibility to nullify laws. Sometimes, in direct opposition to the purpose of a jury, a judge will instruct a jury to apply the law as it is given to them whether they agree with the law or not. In some situations, the judge will call a mistrial if an attempt by the defense attorney to inform the jury about this important right and responsibility. Why would they do such a thing?

In short, because it takes power away from the government and gives it to the people."

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 Adams, 1771"

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, 1804
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0
And the SAFE act is unconstitutional, as soon as it hits an appeal judge, it will be struck down, through common use, a la Heller.

Oh, wait. JUDGE Skretny used his own set of rules....

See, what many fail to understand is there are two ways of doing things:

The not NY way (free world)

The NY way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Again, the rest of America is LAUGHING at us. "Look at these fools, bickering over a bayonet lug or pistol grip! HA!"

Meanwhile in FREE America it isn't can I have this rifle, it's which of these rifles can I afford to buy now. NY (and it's residents) are a joke to the rest of the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
This again? You are incorrect, it's the law of the entire country. I agree if you admit to being a proponent of it you might not be on the jury, however jury nullification is the law of the land no matter what a corrupt NYS judge says.

"In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn't have the power, or that they couldn't be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial."

"How come I haven't heard about this before?
Because for almost a century, judges have been failing to inform juries about this right and responsibility, and have gone to great lengths to keep defense attorneys from informing juries about jury nullification. In the 1895 case Sparf v. US, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform juries of their right & responsibility to nullify laws. Sometimes, in direct opposition to the purpose of a jury, a judge will instruct a jury to apply the law as it is given to them whether they agree with the law or not. In some situations, the judge will call a mistrial if an attempt by the defense attorney to inform the jury about this important right and responsibility. Why would they do such a thing?

In short, because it takes power away from the government and gives it to the people."

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 Adams, 1771"

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, 1804
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0
EVERYTHING you said is correct.

EXCEPT of course for the FATAL FLAW.

The JUDGE will instruct the Jury that if they find the People have proven their case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt they MUST convict. And the fine citizens will do what they are told. That is the reality.

And what you cite is nice. Now please cite ONE, just ONE APPELLATE CASE that applies in NYS where a conviction was overturned BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY THEY COULD NULLIFY.

I suspect that you will never find even one case. NONE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
Not true sir.
The JUDGE will ask every single prospective Juror if he promises, under Oath, to follow the Law as the Judge gives it to the Jury.
Any Juror who answers NO will be excused.

Any Juror who swears to the affirmative and can later be shown to be a nullification advocate (by what they have posted here for instance) is subject to prosecution for perjury.

The fact is, jury nullification is NOT the law of this State. Does it happen? Sure, in the Bronx all the time where they refuse to convict "people of color" for "past injustices". A clever lawyer can get that into a case in many ways.

But here, that is very unlikely to happen. The prosecution will put on an expert to show the gun is operable and considered an "AW". The defendant will NOT be allowed to argue anything about Second Amendment rights. The only questions before the Jury will be:
1. Did he possess the firearm.
2. Was it operable.

Expect a deal to be made for a plea. The lawyer will probably advise the defendant that a trial can result in jail time, he would recommend that he made a no jail plea bargain. That is simply the reality of the system.
This^

If you knowing with hold the fact that you intend to use nullification and instead answer "yes" to the Judge's question of "do you promises, under Oath, to follow the Law as the Judge gives it to the Jury?" and it can later be shown that you lied when you answered the affirmative, you're getting a ride to the greybar hotel.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
EVERYTHING you said is correct.

EXCEPT of course for the FATAL FLAW.

The JUDGE will instruct the Jury that if they find the People have proven their case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt they MUST convict. And the fine citizens will do what they are told. That is the reality.

And what you cite is nice. Now please cite ONE, just ONE APPELLATE CASE that applies in NYS where a conviction was overturned BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY THEY COULD NULLIFY.

I suspect that you will never find even one case. NONE.
Mr. SCO is soooo correct here
Judges skew Cases by Jury Instructions every single day that Court is held
Compliant Tax Cattle vote as they are told, the Defendant has little chance to educate a Jury
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,339 Posts
EVERYTHING you said is correct.

EXCEPT of course for the FATAL FLAW.

The JUDGE will instruct the Jury that if they find the People have proven their case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt they MUST convict. And the fine citizens will do what they are told. That is the reality.

And what you cite is nice. Now please cite ONE, just ONE APPELLATE CASE that applies in NYS where a conviction was overturned BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY THEY COULD NULLIFY.

I suspect that you will never find even one case. NONE.
I agree 100% that the judge will say that. It's actually a lie though. I find it disgusting that judges feel it's ok to tell a blatant lie to jurors. 30 or 40 years ago judges would say you "may convict" however they are now saying "must convict" in ny anyway. A juror has the right to not convict even if the law was broken. Most in this state are unaware of this. That' why it's up to the citizens to inform the subjects (sheep) in this state. You have a 1st ammendment right to inform others of jury nullification. If a safe act arrest goes to trial I think jury nullification information will be made available to the good citizens of ny. I will do my part!

It's also worth noting that a juror cannot be subject to punishment for their decision (barring bribery and such).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,339 Posts
This^

If you knowing with hold the fact that you intend to use nullification and instead answer "yes" to the Judge's question of "do you promises, under Oath, to follow the Law as the Judge gives it to the Jury?" and it can later be shown that you lied when you answered the affirmative, you're getting a ride to the greybar hotel.
Find a case where that has occurred? Good luck proving it! If the judges lie by saying "you must convict" then f em. How much time did Bill Clinton serve for perjury?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,339 Posts
Can a defense attorney not mention jury nullification? I'm sure there is some rule against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
I agree 100% that the judge will say that. It's actually a lie though. I find it disgusting that judges feel it's ok to tell a blatant lie to jurors. 30 or 40 years ago judges would say you "may convict" however they are now saying "must convict" in ny anyway. A juror has the right to not convict even if the law was broken. Most in this state are unaware of this. That' why it's up to the citizens to inform the subjects (sheep) in this state. You have a 1st ammendment right to inform others of jury nullification. If a safe act arrest goes to trial I think jury nullification information will be made available to the good citizens of ny. I will do my part!

It's also worth noting that a juror cannot be subject to punishment for their decision (barring bribery and such).
Be careful informing jurors. They may just put you in jail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/n...jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html

You can't inform jurors about a particular case, but they can be informed about nullification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/n...jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
Can a defense attorney not mention jury nullification? I'm sure there is some rule against it.
Since it is not "the Law" in NYS a Judge will not allow it, and most all lawyers are not going to risk their law license by willfully disobeying a Court Order.
Again, there can be some clever ways to get it in (for example by suggesting through cross examination that the cops were targeting a certain group - i.e. profiling), but I don't see that being the case here. When the prosecution brings in that scarey gun, all is lost.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top