This excellent article comes from Mark Thornton, who argues for various forms of nullification -
including jury nullification - to protect the people of Colorado and Washington states from abuse by a federal government set on pursuing the long - failed war on (some) drugs.
This is part of a series of responses to myths, misconceptions, and misstatements about jury issues,
including jury nullification and juror education outreach.
Not exact matches
English common law procedure
includes the right to
Jury Nullification whenever the
Jury correctly finds an Act of a Legislature to be unconstitutional.
These
include legislation, prosecutorial charging guidelines, court challenges,
jury nullification, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the absence of offence - specific charging guidelines, and the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing.
However, HB 146 was amended by both the House and the Senate, and by the time it was enacted no longer
included any explicit reference to
jury nullification.
In 2012, the same session in which HB 146 was passed, two other bills, HB 1247 and HB 1397, were also considered that
included more explicit provisions for
jury nullification instructions.
They talked extensively about how jurors can use
jury nullification to push back against human rights abuses,
including refusing to be complicit in punishing victimless offenses — offenses which are disproportionately used by government to punish -LSB-...]
HB 1333 Provides judges must give precisely worded
jury nullification instructions that
include the
jury's power to «veto bad laws».
I'm merely presenting them with the complete picture of all of their options,
including the right of
jury nullification that they will typically either not be informed about or will be explicitly misinformed about once they get into a courtroom.
Meanwhile, the 2017 New Hampshire
jury nullification bill (HB 133), that
includes the specific wording / language judges are to use in instructing a
jury, was approved in mid-February by the House (discussed here) and remains pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But whatever one's view happens to be on that subject, I would have thought that the idea of talking about (and that
includes advocating)
jury nullification would be a fairly simple matter of free speech.