Ep. 314 The Juror’s Unknown Rights

7th January 2015 Tom Woods 7

One of the best-kept secrets of the American legal system is jury nullification, the jury's right to determine both the facts of the case and the justice of the law. But it won't be a secret much longer if my guest has anything to say about it. Scroll down for the show notes and mp3!

Subscribe To The Tom Woods Show

James Babb joins me today to discuss an important and exciting jury education campaign, letting potential jurors know about the rights they have that they won’t learn about in the courtroom.

About the Guest

James Babb is a libertarian activist in Philadelphia. Among his projects is WeWontFly.com, a campaign against the TSA.

Guest’s Website

JamesBabb.com (redirects to Facebook)

Links Mentioned

New York City campaign
Jury Rights Project

Organization Mentioned

Fully Informed Jury Association

Related Episodes

Ep. 72: Jury Nullification (Steve Silverman)
Ep. 99: Judge Napolitano! (Judge Andrew Napolitano answers a question on jury nullification around 11:30 or so into the discussion)

Book

33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask, by Tom Woods (question 28 covers jury nullification)

Special Offers

Need inexpensive web hosting? Get a discounted rate at Bluehost — just $3.95 per month! — for TomWoods.com visitors by using this special link.

If you enjoy the Tom Woods Show, my new book — Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion — is for you. Check it out! And get a free copy of the audiobook version, with me reading it, at TomWoodsAudio.com.

Disclosure: Some of the links on this page, like the Amazon link above, are affiliate links, which means I earn a commission if you click through and buy something. So if you do, do so in the happy knowledge that at no extra cost to yourself, you are helping the Tom Woods Show!

Share this post:

David_Rogers_Hunt

What is amazing to me are the number of cases where judges order defendants NOT to tell the jury about the power they ALREADY possess to judge the merits, as well as the facts, of the law as being applied by the state against a defendant. If either the defendant, or his attorney do so, they are held in contempt and the trial is declared a mistrial. See http://www.petermcwilliams.org/page160.html or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktRzyiIK1p8#t=37

If you don’t KNOW your power, you have NO power.
If you don’t KNOW your rights, you hove NO rights.

It used to be that criminal defendants were presumed innocent until proven guilty, while it was also assumed that the government must always be watched by a fully informed, and skeptical public. No more!
Bob_Robert

In New Hampshire, it is the law that the judge WILL instruct the jury in their duty to judge the law as well as the facts.

However, that law has been interpreted into irrelevance by the judiciary itself, watering it down to “may”, and then refusing to enforce even that requirement on the judges.

In this country, and maybe everywhere, what is and is not “the law” comes down to how the government judiciary chooses to interpret it as well as how the government bureaucracies choose to enforce it outside of the courts.

“A government of law, not of men” is a bald faced lie.
At Odds

Signs of a libertarian:
Jury Duty: I feel like it’s my duty to protect somebody else’s freedom. Wished there was a way to get myself in it automatic.
Military: That’s a stupid idea.

Signs of conservative:
Jury Duty: Have to figure out how to get out of it. The criminal needs to be nuked anyways unless he’s forced to sell cakes to gays.
Military: They should be celebrated, and it’s a high honor to perform such a duty of protecting freedom.
Donovan

What a co-inkydink… just got served a jury duty summons today! This time I’m sort of looking forward to it.
Pingback: NYC Jury Rights Campaign Raises more Funds, Gets more Media Coverage - Jury Rights Project()
mayhap

You should!! Be sure to read fija, they have some info to help getting selected if I recall.
Dorwin Dow

One side behaves as if it is jury tampering to tell the jury their powers to nullify. The other side should be arguing that it is jury tampering not to allow them to be told.