HOUSE BILL 133. AN ACT relative to a jury's determination as to the applicability of law

AS INTRODUCED. 2017 SESSION. 17-0088. 09/08. HOUSE BILL 133. AN ACT relative to a jury's determination as to the applicability of law.


CONCORD, N.H. (Dec. 28, 2016) – A bill prefiled in the New Hampshire State House for 2017 would require state courts to fully inform jurors of their right to nullify.

House Bill 133 (HB133) would require courts to “inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” An unusually short and concise bill by modern standards, it reads, in part:

At the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the court shall instruct the jury as follows: “If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However if you find that the state has proved all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

Attached: Unjust Laws.jpg (432x239, 37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

fsp.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

HB133 is an important piece of legislation, as it would bring to light the indispensable right of last resort for regular people sitting in the jury box to stand up against laws that violate their rights.

When the different peoples of America understand jury nullification, and start nullifying murder crimes of their folks against other peoples ala Black Jury nullified Black O.J. Simpson for murdering his white wife, the civil war starts shortly thereafter.

>Return

I was thinking of such a bleak context and I don't see a moral juror doing such a thing.

It's about medicine.

was not*

>Its about medicine
Shut the fuck up you stoner shitbag. Not every crime is weed related.

This is redundant though. Jury nullification still exists even if this doesn't pass.
>blacks protect criminal behavior
I could definitely see this happening. Dindu nuffins, right? Best part is they'll destroy their own cities and homes in the process, especially if they're brought to rioting.

>I don't see a moral juror doing such a thing
You're too optimistic. The general guidelines are that people generally will do whatever they can get away with, and that there are rules and laws until there aren't (i.e. they can't be enforced, refuse to enforce, ignored, forgotten, etc.).

Plenty of "people" have no reservations about justifying criminal behavior as that is all they know, and have no will to change for the better.
>"medicine"
This is a law with widespread implications and you can't just focus on one part of the many laws we have on the books.

>>

Thomas Jefferson also defended jury nullification


>>

By your standards juries should not exist at all!

Attached: unjust laws.jpg (205x203, 8K)

The option for jury nullification should exist, as should juries. It does today.

Informing them of nullification by law sounds redundant, as a jury of peers implies that it is possible to conspire to circumvent the law in that individual case.

I think the bill is just pointless in the same way that EU regulations mandate packaged fish must have a consumer label that says, "Food product may have been handled in a facility that handles fish and seafood."

I don't find the two comparable, especially in the current climate of medical marijuana usage in a number of trials. The jury would inevitably rule for justice which is to not persecute medical patients.

Holy shit you posted 3 fucking treads.
NOT EVERY CRIME IS POT

>weed
Public opinion varies significantly from region to region. It would be inconsistent at best, given that the state of the law says that it's illegal on a federal level and two states legalize it. A few others have decriminalized marijuana.

Regardless, when convicted for possession or use, there are people that see no distinction between using marijuana illegally or medicinally as it is illegal on a federal level, so it can't be assumed that medical patients will be off the hook on this. This is your main barrier.

this bill doesnt do anything except make the judge formally verbally inform the jury of their already known rights.

>having a debate on drug policy on a bill that has far reaching implications beyond drugs
>pothead still doesn't get it
This poster doesn't get what he/she/it/xir/whatever is trying to promote.

Pot shouldn't be a crime, that's the point.

>the civil war starts shortly thereafter
Fucking retard.
Honestly I don't see how this is anything other than virtue signalling. Sage.

No you don't get it.

No your statement is virtue signalling, you self-righteous idiot.

What's the difference between the judge telling the jury they don't have to convict on the basis of an unjust law and the defense telling them the same thing?

Let's just post awoo and things of no consequence without criticism

The point is spreading awareness of the concept

It's one of my life goals to be on a jury for a serious case and save somebody with a nullification "no guilty". I'm in my late 20's and never been summoned for jury duty ONCE.


Is anybody else here my age or older and never been summoned?

this has already happened because jury nullification has been a thing since democrats lynched the first black man

The point is you shitting up the board with 9 different fucking threads. Fucking stoner.

The Panopticon of The Internet

Thomas Jefferson also defended jury nullification, writing that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”

IN PRACTICE

Jury nullification played a noble role in combating federal slavery laws prior to the Civil War, as northern juries regularly refused to convict individuals for violations of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. In one instance, a large crowd broke into a Boston courtroom and rescued a runaway slave. When the government indicted three of those involved, an acquittal and a series of hung juries forced the government to drop the charges.

A recent example of jury nullification occurred in New Hampshire when Doug Darrell was arrested and charged with felonies for cultivating marijuana for religious and medical purposes. If convicted, he would have likely faced many years in prison. He was guilty by the letter of the law, but the jury decided to acquit him anyway.

I got summoned once but the case got dismissed a couple months from the court date. I live in white bread bumfuck nowhere so there aren't many chances to get picked I guess.

This is the problem. In an all-white society, what it means is people using their brains and determining whether someone deserves it.
But in 56%land? It means even higher rates of dindu nuffins getting their fellow co-ethnics off scot-free

Sure, but the issue he's raising is that making it a more obvious, talked about, and MANDATORY-TO-INFORM thing in the courts means that you'll see higher rates of miscarriage of justice.

jurors can say guilty when people are niggers

It's funny how many problems an all-white society would solve.

Yes, it exists. But neither the prosecutor or the judge ever want to deal with it so it gets swept under the rug. If the defense trys to bring it up they get their shit shoved in, and if a juror does they either aren't selected or kicked off.

Twice in 40 years, but both times they sent to an old address that was out of the jurisdiction.

JURORS CAN SAY
"GUILTY"
WHEN PEOPLE BREAK
NATURAL LAWS

>This is redundant though. Jury nullification still exists even if this doesn't pass.
It exists, but often times it would be considered grounds for a mistrial if you informed a jury about jury nullification.

Judges despise the practice and want to treat it as illegitimate since it removes power from their courts and brings it back to the people.

jury nullification. didn't require a bill, it requires balls

Juries shouldn't exist, people are idiots.

The fact that people like you can vote is testament to that. Drug dealers/users should be lined up against a wall and shot

bump for woke NH and the Free State Project
fsp.org/

bump

Hamilton > Jefferson
It's ideas of people like Jefferson that has ruined what could of been a good country. Bunch of short sighted idiots

Your example is an argument against Jury nullification, there is absolutely nothing wrong with slavery.

lol you just need to smoke one and calm the fuck down

the whole country needs a law like this.
it *might* slow some of the police state bullshit.

so long as you castrate the slaves.

Attached: khaldun.png (909x515, 136K)

Good, that's kind of the whole point of using a jury of your peers to prevent tyranny, the law itself can be judged by a jury.

Saying you believe in jury nullification is one of the quickest ways to get thrown out of the jury pool.

If you ever want to escape jury duty just tell the judge you believe in 'jurors rights'.
They will kick you out in a heartbeat.

Attached: gun act.png (1024x624, 638K)

Judges and prosecutors are people too.

We don't have much else to work with until our AI god arises.

Dindus have been getting their homies off the hook for a long time. This is a well known phenomenon.

I just served on a jury a couple weeks ago. During jury pool orientation, the judge specifically stated that we were not allowed to consider the fairness of a law, only whether or not the law had been broken

Why keep Negro slaves in the first place?

>not allowed
By whom? With what consequence? Those are just words, user.

Which is preferable finding 12 idiots who likely know nothing of the legal system being the ones to determine guilt in a court of law; where the outcome will most assuredly not be decided by actual evidence but. Which representative can give the best emotional appeal; or a Judge Dredd style legal system where no bullshit and endless months to determine guilt based upon existing evidence?

Found the guy who lost his girl to a stoner.

This. Imagine being trapped in a small room and having to come to a group consensus with eleven normies. Worse, having the discussion moderated by a braindead basic bitch in yoga pants chosen by the judge to be the "foreman." Absolute fucking hell, made me lose hope for humanity

What does this even matter really?
The courts are rigged.
You go in and they say take this reduced punishment, or risk 300 years in prison and a 6 billion dollar fine.
It's a rigged cattle lot for state money.

Yes it should.

Honestly anything involving democracy is a colossal failure. Not everyone was meant to be a leader and pretending otherwise only makes us needlessly suffer until the problems can no longer be ignored

Ask a question about jury nullification is a good way to get out of jury duty