“Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them.   This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.   “ -- Wikipedia

At one time, judges were required to tell all juries that they were in fact required by our English system of common law, to judge NOT ONLY THE FACTS in the case, but also the very morality of the law itself.     That in effect if a juror found that the law itself was immoral, that they were required to find the defendant NOT GUILTY.

This originated in England as a form of protection by the general population against unjust or immoral laws that were being imposed on them by the ruling elite.     Even in America judges were at one time required to tell all prospective juries about their rights and duties to null-and-void bad laws via the instrument of Jury Nullification.     However, all that started to change; It seems that the South didn’t like the idea of Northern Juries freeing abolitionist who were going around helping run away slaves.     And in truth these abolitionists were indeed guilty of having violated the law, but the juries (through jury nullification) in effect stated that the slavery laws were immoral and thus should not be obeyed.     But the real death knell came during Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920’s.     Juries simply wouldn’t find any of their neighbors guilty of doing something that they themselves were probably also doing --PERIOD.     Thus judges within the legal system simply stopped telling perspective juries about all their rights and duties under jury nullification.

A situation that continues to this very day, with judges (even going so far as to lie to juries) stating that “ONLY THE FACTS, AS PRESENTED IN THE COURT ROOM” must be used to determine guilt or innocence.     Thus giving the impression that “there was no such thing as jury nullification” etc. . .

The Wikipedia contains a short but fairly good history of just what happened when.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Let us look at just one example of what happened to just one individual -- but remember, this man could be anyone and could even one day be you.     The following is taken from a letter to the editor (San Jose Mercury News):
Marney Craig's on Ed Rosenthal's Trial
"Last week, I did something so profoundly wrong that it will haunt me for the rest of my life.     I helped send a man to prison who does not belong there.

As jurors, we followed the law exactly as it was explained to us by Judge Charles Breyer.     We played our part in the criminal justice system precisely as instructed.     But the verdict we reached -- the only verdict those instructions allowed us to reach -- was wrong.     It was cruel, inhumane and unjust.

As a result, Ed Rosenthal will spend years in federal prison, separated from his wife and daughter, for doing nothing more than trying to help the sick.

There is no doubt that Rosenthal was growing marijuana.     Though there was some dispute as to the number of plants, the defense never claimed that marijuana wasn't being grown.

But Rosenthal's attorneys were not allowed to tell us the critical facts:   He grew marijuana for use by people suffering from cancer, AIDS and other horrible diseases whose physicians had recommended it.     He acted with the knowledge and active encouragement of his local government, under a policy overwhelmingly endorsed by the citizens of his community, because city and county officials believed that patients who need medical marijuana should not have to buy it from street dealers.

But Judge Breyer barred us from considering why Rosenthal was growing the marijuana.     “The purpose for which the marijuana was grown is not a defense and is irrelevant,” he said.

This is insane.     A person accused of shooting his neighbor is allowed to explain why he did it, and motivation is often central to guilt or innocence: Did he act out of cruelty and malice, or did he shoot in self-defense, or to protect others?     No one would dream of preventing an accused killer from explaining why he killed.

All Ed Rosenthal did was grow some plants, but he wasn't allowed to tell us why.

Some shreds of information did slip through, enough that most of us suspected that medical use was somehow involved.     But Judge Breyer firmly told us we had to ignore even those tiny scraps of information, and as good citizens, we obeyed.

Even more tellingly, he instructed us, “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

That was the trial in a nutshell.     Justice was barred from Judge Breyer's courtroom, and a man whom no rational society would consider a criminal will go to federal prison.

The central irrationality is the federal law that decrees, as Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Richard Meyer told reporters, “There is no such thing as medical marijuana.   ''   Medically, that's nonsense.     No less than the New England Journal of Medicine -- considered the world's most authoritative medical journal -- has called for an end to the federal ban on medical marijuana, calling it “misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane.''

Ever since the verdict, we have sat awake nights, anguished at the injustice we participated in and angry at ourselves for failing to follow our consciences and vote to acquit.     We hope Judge Breyer and the prosecutor share at least a little of that anguish at the cruel charade they conducted.

But mostly we hope that Congress and the president will act quickly to end the federal ban on medical marijuana.     No jury should ever again have to choose between the law and justice."

Marney Craig, a property manager in Novato, served as a juror in the trial of Ed Rosenthal, who was convicted Jan. 31 of growing marijuana. -
The man they are talking about is Ed Rosenthal who was put on trial by the Federal Narc’s as an example of a big time drug lord.     The jury in this case was only allowed to know that he had been caught growing hundreds of Marihuana plants in violation of Federal Law.

What the jury was NOT TOLD was that the Judge in this case had put a gag order preventing the jury from knowing the following:
  • That the City of Oakland Calif., which did not feel it was right to have their residents trying to fill their Medical Cannabis prescriptions out on the streets, had deputized Mr. Rosenthal as a police officer, Specifically for the purpose of growing Medical Cannabis for medical use.     Thus in effect he had been acting as an agent for the City.

  • That even though the judge, prosecutors, were fully aware, not one of them addressed him as “Officer Rosenthal” throughout the whole trial.     Thus keeping the jury in the dark.

  • That, the gag order issued by the judge was so stringent that the Defense was not only not allowed to mention the Medical Marihuana nature of the trial, but not even allowed to present many witnesses on behalf of the defense.     Witnesses (doctors, medical patients, etc), whose testimony was critical to the defense.

  • That, the jury was thus NEVER made aware of ALL THE TRUTH only selected parts of the truth and thus were led to believe that Ed Rosenthal was a major DRUG LORD.
Judge Charles Breyer (during the trail) even want so far as to state; “The purpose for which the marijuana was grown is not a defense and is irrelevant.”    And at a later time went on to state: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law.''    Which obviously was making reference to Jury Nullification.

SIMPLY PUT, the judge in this case was not the world’s most honest man.     The truth is that Juries DO HAVE THE POWER TO NULL-AND-VOID a bad or immoral law as they see fit.     Which is why it is so important for jurors to be FULLY INFORMED.

The Wikipedia sites do a good job of explaining the legal status in great detail.     In effect NO JUDGE CAN ORDER YOU TO FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY -- END OF STORY.     And all the legal court rulings pretty much have upheld your right NOT to do so.

  • In 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States . . .the United States Supreme Court held said [1] 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws.

  • Also judges have been known to lie.     In fact there is even one famous case in which a judge was actually asked the question by the jury and lied through his teeth about it.     Stating: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."    Thus acting on this information the jury found the defendant guilty.     -- U.S. v. Krzyske (1988) -- -- Note at a later time an upper court held that this was a lie, BUT let the conviction stand??

  • But worse of all, in 1997, a Circuit court ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify.     -- Meaning judges can and will kick you out of a jury if they even think you know anything about Jury Nullification.

  • The JUDGE IS NOT UNDER OATH; --- He or She is not required to tell you ALL OF THE TRUTH nor ALL OF THE FACTS.     In fact (in a normal trial) were a Judge to put herself under oath, that judge would be spending the night in a jail cell.

  • Like the Judge, the PROSECUTORS ALSO ARE NOT UNDER OATH.     Meaning they too are under no obligation to tell ALL OF THE FACTS nor ALL OF THE TRUTH.     In fact some of them have actually conducted trials KNOWING that the defendant was innocent all along; -- Just because they wanted to win the case.     --- However, note that prosecutors usually do not lie, they instead have become very skilled at simply telling only parts of the truth, those parts that they want the jury to know.

  • In Oklahoma, were a defense lawyer to mention (in any way to the jury) the subject of Jury nullification, that lawyer could automatically be DISBARRED right on the spot.


egyptian workers

First understand this; -- EVIL DOES EXIST – Need proof?     Just ask your self this, why would anyone want to deny another the right to seek out medical treatment?     And note, we are not talking about being forced to pay for someone else’s medical treatment; But instead we are talking about denying another the right to obtain proper treatment.     What word other than evil can be used to describe the situation faced by Medical Cannabis patients today?

Thus when we walk into the court room, we must bring with ourselves the proper state of mind.     As described above, the Judge is NOT UNDER OATH, and neither are the Prosecutors. . . .   In other words, they do NOT HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH, nor do they have to tell the WHOLE TRUTH . . . . WITH THIS IN MIND:
  • First and foremost -- Keep your mouth shut about Jury Nullification, and for that matter about your feelings about the anti-Medical Marihuana laws in general.     Please keep in mind that Judges can kick you out of the jury pool for almost any reason.     Also keep in mind that you might be the only one who physically does know about Jury nullification, so if you get kicked out, you could be sentencing an innocent person to jail.     Thus it is your moral duty to keep your mouth shut and do everything possible to stay on the jury.

  • When someone asks you a question, try to answer each question with as few words as possible.     Remember (especially here in Oklahoma) that the prosecutors are trying to figure out if you have any knowledge of Jury Nullification -- SO THEY CAN KICK YOU OUT OF THE JURY.
WARNING: In all likelihood you will be under oath yourself at this time, so don’t lie.     Just remember, neither the judge nor the prosecutor are telling you ALL THE TRUTH, and an innocent person's life might hang in the balance.     Just remember the motto;   “DON’T GET MAD, GET EVEN.”
  • While physically on the jury; --- remember a judge can still kick you out for almost any reason.     So don’t go around doing something stupid (wearing, Pro-Medical Cannabis buttons, or tie dyed tee shirts, etc.), just try to be Mr. and Ms. Average (which in actuality you are).     And most important of all, keep your mouth shut.

  • At the end of the trial, during Jury deliberations, just simply state (remember even in the jury room you will be under oath”), “Not Guilty” because “The fact did not substantiate a Guilty verdict.   ”   DO NOT TALK ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION, even in the jury room.     Why?     Once more a judge can still kick you out at any time for almost any reason.     Additionally, the more you speak (and there will be a tendency for you to do so), the more you give the Reefer Madness cases, an excuse to have you thrown out of the Jury.     Examples: The Jury Foreman can ask the judge to excuse a juror because S/he simply isn’t intelligent enough to serve (this has happened), or that the juror is using four letter words, etc.     The best thing to do is to simply state – “Not Guilty; the facts did not substantiate a guilty verdict” -- End of story.     AND SAY NO MORE.     ------ AND HERE NOTE YET AGAIN, this will be hard for you to do as it goes against human nature, and its want to speak out.     JUST keep thinking about the innocent person who is about to go to prison if you open up.
WARNING:   Again, during all this time YOU WILL BE UNDER OATH, so don’t lie; As in fact you will not be doing so.     Your verdict was reached using ONLY THE FACTS AS INTRODUCED within the courtroom.     Which can only mean that NOT ALL THE FACTS WERE INTRODUCED and thus your reason to say -- --“Not Guilty; the facts did not substantiate a guilty verdict” -- End of story.

In some cases Judges have been known to IN EFFECT place a gag order stating that you are NOT TO JUDGE THE MORALITY of the law, that your decision must be based ONLY THE FACTS AS INTRODUCED IN THE COURTROOM.     This kind of order is questionable, remember Judges CANNOT order you to enter a guilty verdict no matter what.     And in at least one famous case, a Judge in an upper court even stated that the (lower court) judge was lying when he stated this as the case.     However (this being Oklahoma), as you might not want to get into legal trouble yourself.     Just remember, you will be under oath yourself, so if a judge specifically asks you if you know about jury nullification, you will have to answer in the affirmative.     HOWEVER, this question – as it in effect, tells the other jurors about the subject, will most likely not be asked.     However a judge might word something in such a way that it might have various vague meanings.

Which is why you should KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, as much as possible.     Remember they are evil and you are not – At the end of the trial, simply state the truth and say that the evidence simply doesn’t warrant a guilty verdict.

Fully Informed Jury Association
• http://fija.org/

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

ALSO check out "Preparing for Jury Duty" By Clay S. Conrad


Due to the legal nature of this webpage, every attempt has been made to insure technical accuracy.     While making these inquiries three important things (worth mentioning) came up.
  1. About 15 years ago, a Judge in Colorado did indeed get so mad at a juror that S/He threw the book at her.     However, the case itself was wisely dismissed by another judge at a later time.     That was the Ms. Kewho case and again it took place over 15 years ago.

  2. While the jury is deliberating; YES, it is possible for a Judge et al, to kick out a juror IF you refuse to deliberate.     This is very rare but it has been known to happen.     The best bet is still simply to keep your mouth shut, but If it looks like that is going to happen, just the truth; “That you don’t believe the evidence was sufficient to convict.”    Which again is the truth.

  3. During jury selection, you will be asked a lot of questions.     And while it is best to keep your mouth shut, every now or then a jury might be given extra special scrutiny.     Example, you might be given a written questionnaire with questions so worded as to (without actually making mention of Jury Nullification), still be designed to reveal whether you have knowledge of it or not.     In such cases it is then best to answer the question in a bland way.     Example; “I can work within the law” etc.     But please do not use that exact wording or for sure you will give yourself away.

[1]-   This citation was taken directly from the Wikipedia; HOWEVER, we have been told by lawyer types (familiar with Sparf case), that the word “held” cannot accurately be used.     Said reason being that “HELD” is a technical legal term used to imply or state that a specific decision was reached after specifically considering a specific situation, etc.     And as that the quotation (stated above in Sparf v. US) does not meet that qualification therefore (for legal reasons) the word “SAID” is a better choice.


Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed.     If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum.     All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.    

A project of the Oklahoma Voters League
Our Motto - We're pro-Medical Cannabis and we Vote!