anti-gov_movement_guidebook

The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases: Alabama (Art. I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art. II, Sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. I, Sec. 6); Delaware (Art. I, Sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, Sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, Sec. 4); Mississippi (Art. 3, Sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, Sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, Sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, Sec. 6); New York (Art. I, Sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, Sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Art. I, Sec. 7); South Carolina (Art. I, Sec. 16); South Dakota (Art. VI, Sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, Sec. 19); Texas (Art. I, Sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, Sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, Sec. 3); Wyoming (Art. I, Sec. 20). Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, \"as in all other cases.” [Source: Alan W. Scheflin, \"Jury Nullification: the Right to Say No\", Southern California Law Review, 45, p. 204 (1972). This list has been updated to 1996.] When there is division amongst the states on an important issue, trial judges often look to federal authorities for guidance, and such is instructive in this case. Modem Federal Jury Instructions (Sands, Siffert, Loughlin & Reis, Instruction 4-2) suggests that juries should be told that it is their \"duty to acquit the defendant\" if they harbor a reasonable doubt, however, rather than instruct juries that they have a corresponding \"duty to convict,\" i.e., \"must\" convict if they are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the treatise recommends that juries be advised that they \"should vote to convict: if the government has carried its burden (leaving a jury to conclude that it has the authority to nullify even in the absence of a reasonable doubt) [and our own federal district courts agree on this prerogative of the jury, see also, e.g.. United States v. Will L. Dawson, and Derrick Termail Willis, Criminal Cause Numbers: IP 95-0064M-01-02, citing approvingly Beaver v. State, 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118 (1957) to the effect that \"Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides that 'in all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.' However, jurors should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not act arbitrarily, capriciously, upon a whim or prejudice.] While logic would seem to dictate that a corollary obligation be imposed on jurors, it is reversible error to charge that the jury must explain their doubts ever since the ordeal of Edward Bushell and the Penn jury hereinabove. HUGO BLACK, a great believer in the Jury system, used to tell this story-Years ago, in the foot-hills of Alabama, a tenant-farmer was charged criminally with stealing a cow from his landlord, and was brought to trial. As was frequently the case in ru ral America, the Jurors selected for the trial were 189

The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook acquainted with everyone, including the accused and his victim. Each juror knew that the farm's landlord was a nasty bastard who tormented his neighbors, while frequently treating the town's orphans and widows with derision. By the same token, the tenant-farmer was the salt of the earth, beloved by everyone. But still, the evidence of his guilt was indisputable. After the evidence was in and the jury retired to deliberate, it quickly returned to the courtroom to announce its verdict: \"If the accused returns the cow, we find him not guilty.” The judge was infuriated. His anger heightening, he commanded the jury to return to the jury room to deliberate — shrilly chastising them for their flagrantly \"arrogant\" and \"illegal\" verdict. Not a moment passed when they re-appeared in the tense courtroom to trumpet their new verdict: \"We find the accused not guilty - and he can keep the cow.\" The American Jury, Justice Black reminds his listeners, is effectively omnipotent in rendering an acquittal. What hits home in Justice Black's story is the deeply held American notion that juries often perform an independent role in a system in which the people - not prosecutors, judges or lawyers - have the last word. In the end, if the jury wishes to let the defendant keep the cow, that is what will happen. Respectfully submitted: R. J. Tavel, J.D. R. J. Tavel, J.D., #-—— Indiana State coordinator, F.I.J.A., Inc. Founder, Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum c/o 4000 North Meridian Street, Suite 6D Indianapolis, Indiana 46208-4025 317/923-3399 END 190