By Brent Daggett: In 1782, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his tome, Notes on the State of Virginia, “it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question
relate 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.”This may seem like an antiquated statement, especially given our current state of affairs regarding unconstitutional laws, however the application of jury nullification is making its way back to the forefront.
Be sure to read Brent’s other recent articles on ballot access for third parties, free speech in schools and local currencies.
On June 18, 2012 Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire signed HB 146, which reads:
“In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”
In other words, jurors have the right not only to be informed of jury nullification, but have the right to nullify a law if they have reason to believe the law itself is corrupt.
Even though the law does not go into effect until next January, jury nullification in New Hampshire has already occurred.
In 2009, Rastafarian Doug Darrell, of New Hampshire, was arrested after members of a marijuana eradication task force spotted plants from a National Guard helicopter flying over Darrell’s home in Barnstead.
Darrell’s lawyer, Mark Sisti, attempted to get the evidence suppressed, but to no avail, arguing the aerial surveillance was illegal, since the helicopter was below the Federal Aviation Administration of safe altitude, thus violating Darrell’s privacy.
.png){kind=small}
