How Jury Nullification Rescued a Quaker

Because a few jury members practiced jury nullification to protect this man,
America has reaped untold blessings from this Quaker's life.

     Since publishing a post about the forgotten right of jury nullification, I've been asked if this is a Constitutional right.  It is a Constitutional right in that the Constitution gives the right of a trial by jury.  This can be established when historical purposes of a jury are considered.  The power of jury nullification, for the most part, has been unquestioned, but many believe it is a last resort against tyranny and that it should not be made known to jurors. 

      It is interesting that one of the most prominent stories of jury nullification comes to us from a character in history that had a profound effect on both America and England.  If jury nullification had not been practiced to help this man we would not have a Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, and no state called Pennsylvania.  This man's name was William Penn.  It was in 1670, and William Penn was on trial in England for breaking the law.  What was the broken law?  He was preaching without a license, and teaching things from the Scripture that were not accepted in his day.  There was no question that he had broken the law, but four of the men that were part of his jury pronounced him "not guilty" because they knew the law was an unjust law as William had harmed no person nor their property.  These jury members were punished in a harsh manner in order to make them change their minds.  They were tortured for nine weeks in prison getting wet with urine and feces spread on their bodies because of not having rest facilities.  They went days without food or water.   Prison in that time was different from today. They would not change their decision.  One of the men, Edward Bushell, a wealthy owner of an international shipping enterprise said, "My liberty is not for sale."
      Because these men decided to not back down, this unjust law called the Conventicle Act lost its power and  Freedom of Religion was acknowledged and became law in England in the English Bill of Rights, and was later repeated in America under our First Amendment.  William Penn's life was spared because if "guilty" had been his verdict he likely would have been executed.  Eventually Edward Bushell was released from prison because of the concept of "habeas corpus." Edward's trial also started a movement that I'm excited about today that is called "freedom of the press."
     Other important events surrounded this pivotal case of jury nullification.  All American colonies except one implemented a trail by jury because they saw the need to preserve people's liberties.  William later left England to come to America and established Pennsylvania.  He remembered the things he went through and sought to make a place that had just laws.     William recognized that freedom comes from God and he gave a prophetic type quote when he said, "Men must be governed by God, or they will be governed by tyrants."

Sources:
Citizens Rule Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://www.awesomestories.com/famous-trials/penn

Jury Nullification, A Forgotten Right

                                          Ken Miller might have received a "not guilty" verdict
                                         had jurors known the true rights they have.


There is a forgotten right that many are not aware of that the founding fathers gave to the citizens of America. This is the ability of jury members to not just determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty, but also have the ability to judge whether a law is just or unjust. This is called jury nullification. The name almost sounds opposite from what it means as one might first get the impression that the jury is nullified, but it is speaking of the ability of the jury to nullify the power of a bad law. The jury members can not change law, but they can restrict a law they deem unjust from being enforced. This was a wise safeguard that was given by wise men with a lot of foresight. 
Taking time to fulfill the duty to be a jury member can be inconvenient, but it is a privilege and right that is to be cherished.  It's not very helpful to complain about our eroding freedoms and then not be willing to practice the ones we have.

There was a news story that caused me to think about how the truth of jury nullification needs to be publicized.  This was the case of a pastor who received a felony conviction for trying to help a woman protect her daughter from being given to someone she didn't trust.  This was alleged to be against a court law.  The case was given to a jury to decide the case.  The directions were given to the jury to decide if the pastor broke the law.  The case was more convincing that the pastor broke the law and he was convicted as being guilty.  One jury member appeared to be emotional because of the decision.  Though we don't know why this was the case, if it was because the jury member believed that the law was unjust, that jury member could have said "not guilty" and the pastor would not have received the felony charge.  The pastor would not be faced with going to prison and being separated from his family.  This is the power that that the founding fathers left with us that gives the power to one individual in a jury to determine if a man is pronounced not guilty.

Most juries in the United States are told by judges that they are to only judge the facts that are given to them and if those facts violated a law.  This has left people without the knowledge of their true right to also be able to judge the law that was said to be violated.  John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
In the first jury trial before the Supreme Court the charge was given to the jury that said, "...it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law.  But still both objects are within your power of decision."  In other words the real power of decision is with juries; the judge is to act as a referee that is bound by the Constitution.

     Perhaps in the future more people will be aware of what "jury nullification" is, and, being armed with knowledge, be able to stop the enforcement of bad laws.

References:
Ken Miller Support Site
 NY Times article on Ken Miller