April 24th, 2011

Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking it to Leviathan

by Don Doig and Stewart Rhodes

rockwell jury room

Norman Rockwell- Jury Room (a.k.a. The Holdout)

(originally published on LewRockwell.com)

Citizens in our (once) free republic founded under the English common law system, have both the power and the right to vote according to conscience when they sit on a jury and can vote not guilty even in the face of the law and in the face of the evidence. The defendant also has a right to expect that his jury will be fully informed of their rightful power to vote “not guilty” if they believe justice requires it, regardless of the evidence. Anything less is not a real jury trial.

The jury issues no opinion, gives no explanation of its decision. It simply renders its verdict, and if the verdict is “not guilty,” that acquittal cannot be questioned or overturned by any court. It is telling that a conviction can be overturned, but an acquittal cannot – the deck is stacked on the side of the liberty of the individual on trial. While a judge can overturn a jury conviction that in his judgment is unsupported by the evidence, or where the jury harbors prejudicial animus toward the defendant, the judge cannot overturn an acquittal even if the evidence is overwhelming – even if the defendant admits on the stand that he did the actions of which he is accused.

A landmark case in jury history is that of William Penn, the Quaker preacher who would later found Pennsylvania. He was put on trial in England for the “crime” of preaching a non-government approved religion on a public street corner. He did not deny that he had preached as a Quaker. He proudly proclaimed it. There was no doubt that English law at the time considered his actions criminal. That too was plain. And yet, the jury acquitted him in spite of the obvious, undisputed facts, and in the face of the clear law. That jury was initially held in contempt and jailed by the trial judge, but on appeal, the English appellate courts ruled that the jury has an absolute power to acquit despite the facts and in the face of the law, and that it cannot be punished for exercising its power. That acquittal helped to establish the free practice of religion.

The same was true in the celebrated Zenger trial in the American colonies, where Zenger, a newspaper editor, did not deny he had published an editorial severely criticizing the royal governor. The facts were undisputed. Under English law at the time, mere criticism of government officials, even if true, was still considered libel, and could be punished. And yet, despite both the law and the facts being abundantly clear, the jury acquitted Zenger. That acquittal helped establish legal protection for freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, such that only knowingly false statements can be considered libel.

The Fugitive Slave laws criminalized the underground railroad. Abolitionists accused of helping runaway slaves were often set free by sympathetic jurors voting according to conscience, nullifying the law.

One way to think of the jury is that it is effectively a fourth branch of government, sovereign in its own realm. Separation of powers requires that its powers and immunities remain inviolate. In this sense, the jury has as much a power to set even a “guilty” man free as a governor using the power of clemency, or as a President using his “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. That power is also absolute, except in cases of impeachment.

It’s telling that modern power elites don’t scream and yell about governors and Presidents having such an absolute power to set even a clearly “guilty” man free. When fellow elites within government do it, it is accepted. But when the people, as a jury, do precisely the same thing, elites gnash their teeth and shrilly warn of impending chaos and anarchy (as if that were a bad thing!), crying crocodile tears about all the supposed injustice that will result if the jury does something similar to what governors and presidents do at will.

The plain fact is our entire legal system was originally designed to favor liberty, with discretion built in at every level, from the beat cop, to the prosecutor (who has a responsibility to see that justice is done, and that sometimes means not prosecuting even in a clear case), to the jury, to the judges who can overturn an unjust conviction (such as by ruling the law to be unconstitutional as applied), to the governor and/or President who can overturn even a “just” conviction and set a certifiably guilty man free. As Hamilton stated in Federalist 74, in reference to the power of Pardon:

“The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

Just so. And as it is with the power of pardon, so it is with the power of the jury.

The scales of justice are meant to be tipped on the side of liberty, with “easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt” built in at each step.

Another way of looking at the jury is that it is much like the militia, since it too is a vital public institution where the people directly participate by being their own guardians. A people who are their own guardians in the militia cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty a usurping tyrant may be. Likewise, a people who are their own judges of guilt, their own judges of the law as applied to that case, and their own guardians of the liberty of their fellows by serving on a jury, cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty the minions of the usurping state may be. When a jury is aware of its power, they can stop the state cold, however much it lusts for convictions.

That absolute power to nullify has always been the jury’s power – it is, in fact, the very core of what a jury does. When I (Stewart) was a student at Yale Law School, my procedure professor, Owen Fiss, openly acknowledged that a jury is not merely a fact finder. He pointed out that if that were all a jury were for, we could have professional fact finding juries, made up of forensic experts, handwriting analysis experts, voice analysis experts, etc. who would be far more “efficient” fact finders, working together on one case after another.

Though Professor Fiss, being an elitist liberal, didn’t trust juries and instead considered judges “the “embodiment of public reason” (I know, I know, amazing that someone so brilliant can be so blind), he was at least honest enough to admit that the jury is there to serve as a populist, peoples’ check on government power. It didn’t make sense any other way. What Professor Fiss could not see is that the virtue of the jury is precisely the fact that it does not come from some elite segment of society out of touch with the “unwashed masses.” It is made up of average people who will never sit together again on the same jury. They come together only once, to do justice and then to depart. The jury is not a repeat player in the system, like judges, lawyers, and hired-gun expert witnesses. It cannot be influenced by special interests, it has no institutional turf to defend, no reason to go along to get along with backroom deals, and no desire to rack up a conviction record to further political ambitions.

And the real purpose of that unique, independent assembly of average people is to stand in between an accused and the mighty state, as the last shield against tyranny short of recourse to arms. And like David standing in front of Goliath, it does not matter how powerful the state is, however air-tight its case, however artfully it has stacked the laws against the accused, however unconstitutional its manipulations, however blood-thirsty its prosecutors, or however complicit its judges. However much the state wants to strip the life, liberty, or property from the lone defendant, it can still be stopped by that one jury. Just a handful of citizens, if they know their true power, can grind the machine to a halt, and stop it cold, at least in that one case … if they but know of their own power.

And therein lies the problem. Though that absolute power to acquit is part and parcel of traditional trial by jury – is in fact inseparable from it – judges, prosecutors and the power elite have always resented this fact and have tried to suppress it. In effect, there has long been a power struggle between the people, seeking to preserve their rights and powers, and established state power seeking to usurp the power of the people and to enhance its own power. Despite the clear, well settled power of the jury to acquit, willful judges have cleverly argued that while the jury has the absolute power to acquit, they don’t have a right to (so say the crafty judges) and so judges are not required to tell the jury of the power it clearly has. But they don’t just omit that information, they actively mislead the jury by telling them the opposite – that they must convict if they find such and such facts to have been proven, that they must follow the law as the judge explains it, and that they may only consider the evidence presented to them. In other words, the judges, and the prosecutors, lie to the juries.

First, during jury selection (voir dire) the jurors are grilled by the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, and are often asked very intrusive personal questions. Seeking the lowest common denominator, prosecutors and judges eliminate intelligent, aware people, who are routinely eliminated via “pre-emptive strikes” which require no explanation, or “for cause.”

And, an increasingly common question is something like: Do you believe that the jury can judge the law? Have you heard of jury nullification? Can you agree to set aside your own convictions and follow the law, and convict the defendant if the evidence proves guilt? If you wish to avoid jury duty, an answer to the effect that Yes, you do understand your right to vote your conscience, will get you sent home. But, if instead, you wish to be seated, what should you do? First, say as little as possible. Do not volunteer information.

So, if the judge asks you if you can apply the law as he explains it, say “Yes.” You may believe the judge when he says “this is what the law is” (though judges will disagree on points of law) but no one can force you to convict against your conscience and better judgment. Certainly you can follow the judge’s instructions, so you are not lying by saying “yes” when asked that question, but you also know the well established truth that you can also acquit even in the face of the law as given by the judge, and in spite of the facts. You can just keep that knowledge to yourself without volunteering it.

Some may call this taking a “mental reservation” as in, Question: “Can you follow my instructions on the law?” Answer: “Yes” – but with a mental reservation (to yourself) of: I may believe your description of the statute law, but the higher law is the Constitution, if there is a conflict.

Others see it as simply retaining the knowledge of the fact that a jury can acquit even in the face of the judge’s instructions – which is well settled law. No acquittal can be overturned, even if the jury didn’t follow the law. The statute law may be as the judge describes it, but the judge has no power to dictate a verdict of “guilty” to the jury. If the judge requires an “oath” of the jurors which requires them to follow the law as given by the judge and to convict if the facts are proven, that oath is a false oath and is not enforceable.

As the Penn trial established hundreds of years ago, jurors may not be punished for their verdict. An attempt to punish a Colorado juror (Laura Kriho) with contempt of court for not being forthright during jury selection questioning (voir dire) ended when she was released by an appeals court ruling.

However, what has occasionally happened is that seated jurors have been dismissed for refusing to discuss a possibility of finding the defendant guilty, taking a clear jury nullification stance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in 1997, that if you insist that you will acquit regardless of the evidence, you can be removed for being “incapable” of being impartial. However, if you express “reasonable doubt” about the evidence, or the credibility of the witnesses and informants, or the credibility of the police, in addition to questioning whether the law itself is unjust, the judge cannot remove you from the jury, because they can’t prove that you were determined to acquit regardless of the evidence. You might also suspect that evidence favorable to the defense has been withheld from the jury.

Jurors should be aware that if an acquittal is not possible, a hung jury is an acceptable outcome if a juror believes it necessary to prevent a conviction that would be unjust. A series of hung juries sends a signal to the legislature and to prosecutors that a significant portion of the population does not support that law. A mistake jurors sometimes make is to throw the prosecution a bone by convicting the defendant on a “lesser charge.” (Prosecutors often multiply charges on the hope that something will stick, and to encourage a plea bargain.) That can cost the defendant years in prison if the judge so decides at sentencing. If justice requires it, nothing short of an acquittal or hung jury on all counts is appropriate. It can take intestinal fortitude to stand alone but a single juror can hang the jury.

The power of the jury to vote according to conscience and judge the merits, fairness, constitutionality and applicability of the law itself, is the only real, undiluted power the individual citizens have in our system of government. If we are engaged in a struggle for our fundamental rights against governments on all levels, and we are, then we must view our role as partisan guerrillas, and we have a powerful yet peaceful tool at our disposal. It has been hidden from us, and we are intimidated into thinking it is not our right, but if we will summon the courage to grasp it, we can use jury veto power, or jury nullification, as a weapon in defense of liberty.

Frankly, when awake and aware lovers of liberty choose not to serve on a jury, they are leaving the battlefield with Goliath still standing, jeering at them as they walk away. By not serving, they are denying to themselves one of the critical “boxes of freedom” and a chance to sling one right between Leviathan’s eyes. If they don’t take that shot, what is left? Not much. The ballot box is a joke, the soap box, while still there, is also under relentless attack, with mainstream media now nothing more than Mordor’s mouthpiece. Why give up the jury box to the enemy? You know what comes next.

Serving on a jury should be viewed as a form of liberty guerrilla warfare in the current “soft” or cold war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyranny. We’d better use it while we can before the war goes hot. Besides, It’s good practice. We need to exercise our liberty muscles and our own cunning and resolve in the face of adversity. Step into the ring!

We must close with the enemy and battle him in every arena, including in the courtroom. Give Leviathan no safe place, no place to let down his guard, and instead take the fight straight to him in a place where he thought he was supreme and could not be defeated. One juror, just one, can shut down all the gears, all the levers, and all the apparatus of unjust power, and make it stop. One juror can throw a critical monkey-wrench into the works. And if enough jurors do that, the cursed machine will be prevented from working at all. Just you, a lone liberty guerrilla, in a peaceful, bloodless, mini-revolution of conscience, can drive a dagger into the soft underbelly of the beast and set someone free. Talk about focus of effort! There can be no better time spent in the struggle to directly stop oppression.

April 25, 2011

Don Doig [send him mail] is a co-founder and vice president of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Stewart Rhodes [send him mail] is an Army Airborne veteran, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, a 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, and is the founder and president of Oath Keepers.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Sincere thanks go out to Don Doig, Founder of FIJA, for inviting me to co-author this article, and to Lew Rockwell, of LewRockwell.com for publishing it at his site.  The jury is a critical institution.  It is as fundamentally critical to liberty as is the militia, and as is our right to bear arms.  As the saying goes, we have “four boxes of liberty”: the soap box (freedom of speech and assembly), the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  We must guard each of them with equal resolve and jealousy, for they truly are our great shields against tyranny.

Denial of the ancient right of jury trial was one of the causes of our Revolution, as was clearly stated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, written July 4, 1776 (commonly known as the Declaration of Independence), where the Founders condemned the King “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury” and for claiming the power “to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws” (courts of admiralty).    Jury trial was an ancient right of Englishmen, considered by our Founders to be a non-negotiable right of the colonists, for which they were willing to fight and die.

And yet, even now it is under relentless assault, both by willful judges and prosecutors who deny the full right and power of the jury, as  discussed in our article, and and also by willful Presidents who illicitly claim the power to strip Americans of this fundamental right by designating us “unlawful combatants.”   First Lincoln, then FDR, and now Bush and Obama have claimed the power to apply the international laws of war to American citizens, precisely as if we were foreign enemies in wartime, and try us by military tribunal rather than by jury in a civilian, Article III court.   The more things change, the more they remain the same.  Our forefathers fought a bloody Revolution against such outrageous claims of power, and yet here we are, facing the same claim of power to subject us to a jurisdiction FOREIGN to our Constitution – the international laws of war.   And under this doctrine, Obama also claims the power to simply assassinate us, if he thinks it necessary for “national security.”

We must stand like a rock and refuse to give even a shred of legitimacy to any such outrageous claims of power, regardless of which party is in the White House.   And if the political and legal elites persist in this claim of power, we must resist it with as much fire and defiance as our Forefathers.   The right to jury trial is our last shield of liberty, and our last resort short of an appeal to arms and to the God of hosts.  Remember that, and act accordingly.  – Stewart Rhodes

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

15 Responses to “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking it to Leviathan”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    rev. dave Says:

    I see discussion of jury rights frequently, but it seems I never see any reference to the root of a jury’s rights. Where in US law is this right – to decide ‘not guilty’ because of a specious law – established?

  2. 2
    Robert Hauser Says:

    I have been fighting in defense of the right and duty to jury veto for decades….and have been threatened with contempt of court numerous times. Contempt of court is defined as “any act calculated to impede the administration of justice and/or to lessen the authority and dignity of the court”…yes, I have pointed out, but from what fount does all LAWFUL justice ultimately spring? The letter and spirit of the Constitution, so that by my asserting the the Supremacy of same in a court that honors far more in the breach than in the observance, who then is truly guilty of contempt? And again, mot merely the vaunted “authority and dignity” of the court but its very existence is by sole and exclusive leave of the Constitution, so by my being threatened for merely asserting the Constitution, who indeed is guilty of a contempt.

    If anyone who is threatened with a contempt charge for asserting the right to jury veto or jury nullification or any other Constitutional right, they should immediately and forthwith vehemently state in a manner clearly audible throughout the courtroom NOT GUILTY!….and then demand to be allowed the CommonLaw right to exercize JURAMENTUM PURGATORIUM —–the right to make a purgatory oath, i.e. an OATH OF PURGATION and then recite pretty much what is said above about contempt…this is essentially the right of any defendant to make s statement purging himself of any guilt of “contempt”. The court must then pull in another judge to preside over the issue of contempt.

    Pisses them off, believe me.

    You might find it of interest that what we call the twelve member jury trial originated among the early forest tribes of Germany even before the Common Era and about the same time among the Ancient Vikings. They invented not only the standard twelve member petit juries but the grand juries as well which they referred to as “Razengeburge” and, the Oath of Purgation was also a gift the Ancient Germans handed down to us—-the belief being that one accused of a crime is much better afforded a chance of true justice at the hands of twelve of his fellow citizens of as close to his social standing and financial stratum than before some fat salaried bureaucrat…there is a very time honored saying among us Germans that goes way back to Antiquity: the more laws the less justice.

    What people in America laughably refer to as a “jury trial” today is nothing more than a court trial wherein some power-sotted and overpaid judicial bureaucrat in black negligee speaks through twelve pairs of commandeered lips…..what people in America today call a “jury” is, in the vast majority of cases, no more than a twelve member lynch mob shanghaied out of the gutters and off the streets of the place where the proceeding is to be held….this is why the FIJA group is so absolutely vital to the survival of what trace is left of our Constitutional rights and LAWFUL justice as opposed to the current judicial oligarchy of JU$T U$.

  3. 3
    Robert Hauser Says:

    In response to rev. dave….you will see it largely embodied in older “case law” …if you will contact FIJA they will furnish the case citations and then at your leisure you can go to a decently stocked law library if there be one close by and Shephardize these cases for yourself. Do you know how to Shephardize? You might be staggered at what you would find. One excellent source of info on the right to and solemn duty of Jury Nullification is in the writings of Lysander Spooner….one of the greatest jurists in America’s history. Merely demanding a “jury trial” is setting yourself up for disaster because the judge will “charge” the jury (i.e. TAMPER with) by admonishing them that their duty is to “apply the law the way I set it forth to you” or some officious sounding flatulence and that “it is yours to judge the evidence and facts of the case, it is within my realm to interpret and judge the soundness of the law” or words to that effect—-essentially the judge is bald facedly LYING to the jury and is guilty of grossly tampering with same—-under the CommonLaw of the United States, the jury has the right and duty to judge the soundness of the law as well as the facts of the case. Thusly when demanding a jury trial, one should always specify unambiguously that it is to be a CommonLaw jury trial in a court of competent CommonLaw jurisdiction. It will almost automatically be denied which will pose grounds for instant appeal on the spot and for what is known as a TOTAL DISCLAIMER OF UNLAWFUL EQUITY OR CHANCERY JUISDICTION against the court claiming jurisdiction over the matter—-many of our tax fighting patriots have prevailed in court doing this. But you sure as the Hell won’t see word one of this in tripe sheets like the Frisco Chronicle or Contra Costa Times whose stink rich news rubbisher and owner, Al Lesher, wines and dines the i.r.s. at his mansion twice a year.

  4. 4
    Zeb Blanchard Says:

    Constitution of the State of Georgia Article I. Bill of Rights, Section I. Rights of Persons Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; . . .In Criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trail by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the JUDGES OF THE LAW and the facts.
    When I asked the clerk of the court in my county if I would be found in contempt as a juror if I acquitted based on my judgment of the law she couldn’t answer.
    My guess is that if you do acquit on these grounds you should be prepared to go “away” for ten days. I can’t think of a better way to exhibit civil disobedience. I would probably try to get some statement in on my way to the slam to the effect that I was trying to set a precedent.

  5. 5
    Jon Roland Says:

    This article persists in the same mistake made by FIJA activists since the organization was founded: that it is somehow sufficient to make jurors aware that they can review and reject the decisions on motions of law made by the judge in rendering a verdict. first, most jurors are already aware of that, at some level, and second, being aware of that is useless without hearing the legal arguments that are kept from them. “Judging the law” is not something that can be done with only “conscience” or a sense of natural justice. It requires knowledge of law and the legal arguments that even a lawyer sitting on a jury is not likely to have in a particular case. The judge himself often learns the law in the case from the debate between the attorneys. If he has to hear the arguments to learn enough to competently decide the legal motions, then how does anyone expect jurors can review and perhaps reject his decisions without also hearing the legal arguments? They cannot, and it is futile to expect them to do so.

    The reform needed is not some instruction to the jury that they can consider the law, but a requirement that all legal argument be made in the hearing of the jury, except perhaps argument on motions in limine that cannot be made without disclosing evidence properly excluded. It doesn’t work to require judges to give some instruction. They can always find a way to weasel out of that if they want to. What can work is to make it a mandatory reversible error to fail to make all legal arguments (with the exception above) to the jury. And the public from whom the jurors are drawn need to be educated that if they do not hear all of the legal arguments in a case, they must summarily acquit. That is the reform and the public education we should be pushing.

  6. 6
    Wallbager Says:

    Day of Reckoning coming soon (can’t wait!)…

    Our military, law enforcement, and ELECTED OFFICIALS need to HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!! oathkeepers.org

  7. 7
    Tim Allen Says:

    If a judge orders someone to jail on contempt despite that juror’s best attempt to explain their rights, is it possible to sue the judge and any other participants for unlawful detention? I am someone who understands what I am reading here, but I would have much difficulty remembering the key details, and would have difficulty conveying my thoughts effectively. once you have been detained, even for the briefest of moments, your rights have been violated. That is grounds for not only a lawsuit, but possibly criminal charges as well.

  8. 8
    Don Doig Says:

    What FIJA is mainly saying is not that jurors judge the law in some technical sense, but they make a judgment about whether it seems just, properly applied, constitutional – and whether they want to convict someone for it. We want the judge to stop lying to the jury about their powers, and to stop intimidating them. We think this is the important issue, and it is what FIJA will continue pursuing. Your idea is a good one. In the ’90s we came up with several ideas for further legal reform, and yeah, I’d agree with this idea too. But we are not going to drop what we are already doing because you think you have a better idea that should supercede it. Start your own activist legal organization, without attacking FIJA, thank you. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    Don Doig
    FIJA vice president and co-founder

  9. 9
    Sue Clary Says:

    FYI.. When you go for the interview for jury service, the Attorney or Officer in charge is now keeping an eye out for potential rouge jurors. I had that very clear impression when I attended one.
    They are eliminating anyone whom they suspect of having knowledge of JURY NULLIFICATION in advance before they every get seated.
    Sue Clary

  10. 10

    I like what I see from Oath Keepers. You are actually putting up a fight ,not just slinging hot air.
    I think I’ll shift all my time, effort and resources to Oath Keepers.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148