Contents: 1. What are “Jury Rights”? 2. Movie Overview 3. Campaign Objectives 4. Budget & Plan 5. Donate & Give Me Feedback
Since 2002, Flex Your Rights’ films have taught you and yours how to assert your constitutional rights on the road, in your home, and on the streets. As part of our ongoing effort to eradicate constitutional illiteracy, I decided to cover those three “theaters of battle” first. (26 million YouTube views later, I think we covered ‘em pretty well!)
Now it’s time for us to flex our rights in a courtroom theater — as members of a jury.
1. What are “Jury Rights”? Jurys have the right and the power to find a defendant “not guilty” even if the evidence shows that a law was broken. Also known as “jury nullification” or “jury independence,” this is a well-established constitutional doctrine in American case law. It’s purpose is to protect defendants from laws that jurors feel are unjust or misapplied.
Unfortunately, most jurors are not aware of their power to vote their conscience. Even fewer know how to intelligently exercise that right. Moreover, judges often do everything in their power to keep jurors in the dark about their right. (New Hampshire is the only state that allows defense attorneys to inform juries of their right to judge the law.)
But Flex fans like you already know that you can’t count on government officials to tell you about your constitutional rights. Jury rights are no exception. That’s what this new movie is all about!
2. Movie Overview The working title of the 40-minute film is Not Guilty: A Juror’s Guide to Protecting Good People from Bad Laws.
The main storyline features a young woman being interviewed by a reporter. She’s outing herself as the holdout juror who refused to convict a high-profile medical marijuana grower, leading to his [Spoiler Alert!] acquittal.
Through flashbacks, we learn how she embraced the news of her jury summons. Instead of avoiding service — like so many of us try to do — she carefully prepared to improve her odds of getting selected. We see how she cleverly responds to lawyers’ questions intended to weed-out conscientious jurors. Then we watch her win over jury members initially set on conviction.
Not Guilty will also present a brief history of jury independence, and straightforwardly address the most compelling moral justifications and criticisms of the practice. Viewers will fully appreciate how jury service is one of the most important things they can do to fight abusive government power.
Where does it say that the obligation is to vote without prejudice or bias; based on evidence provided and not assumptions; without consideration of how other jurors feel or giving in to the pressure to vote a certain way; predisposed notions of guilt or innocence based on facts not in evidence; voting with an open mind of understanding the evidence, etc.????
How about a video that outlines the whole process and INFORMS the public on this duty when called??? Why focus on parts instead of including as a whole??? I think a total video YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A JUROR WHEN CALLED TO SERVE would be very useful
And just for the record, on the jurys I have been on, the instructions we were given were exactly that... covering everything I just mentiioned, including that we were to consider if any laws were broken in the process of procuring evidence against the defendant, etc.
and here is rest of article:
Quoted Text
3. Campaign Objectives First things first, I want to create the most powerful, entertaining, and enduring jury education tool in the universe. Brochures, essays, and expert lectures are essential jury education media. But film has a unique power to inspire us to act.
When it’s completed, I will upload the full-length version and a 5-minute teaser trailer to YouTube. I’ll do my bit to persuade popular bloggers and mainstream media reporters to cover it. But ultimately the video will sink or swim based on its own merits.
It’s impossible to know exactly how popular these new jury rights videos will be. But if view trends for our existing YouTube videos offer any hint, I think that we could reach 10 million new video views within the first year of release.
But video views will be just the first measure of success. The most valuable victories will be won months and years later. These will be counted by the number of viewers who get on juries AND refuse to convict defendants charged with victimless crimes AND then choose to out themselves to the media just like our brave protagonist.
Each and every new “not guilty” verdict sends a powerful message to prosecutors and legislators: We the people will no longer help the government lock up good people for breaking bad laws.
4. Budget & Plan My primary 2013 goal is to raise $100K to produce Not Guilty. That was the budget for our most recent film, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. With fewer shooting locations than 10 Rules had, we should be able to achieve even better production quality with a $100K budget.
Los Angeles filmmaker Adam “Hawk” Jensen is set to direct. You might have seen his excellent Reason.TV video, The Government’s War on Cameras. Longtime Flex filmmaker Roger Sorkin is set to produce.
My secondary 2013 goal will be to complete the Not Guilty screenplay. As I explore the topic I’ll interview some of the top lawyers, scholars, and activists covering this issue. These include — but are not limited to — Radley Balko, Clay Conrad, Prof. Paul Butler, Prof. James Duane, Iloilo Jones, Prof. Michael Huemer, Prof. Angela J. Davis, Julian Heicklen, Mark Sisti, and Ed “NJWeedman” Forchion.
5. Donate & Give Me Feedback In the coming weeks and months I’ll flesh out the project in greater detail. But in the meantime your early support helps aid my writing, research, and outreach to grant-giving foundations.
Speaking of foundation grants, they take lots of time and effort to secure. (And only a precious few fund film.) So every dollar I can raise from you — my most reliable givers — provides more proof that we have a groundswell of support needed to make this project succeed.
Also, many of you are already jury nullification experts who have something to teach me. If you’ve got a short story to share about your own jury experience or you’re a lawyer or defendant with personal insights or ideas, please contact me directly or post a comment to Flex Your Rights’ Facebook page.
I’m excited to hear what you think!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Where does it say that the obligation is to vote without prejudice or bias; based on evidence provided and not assumptions; without consideration of how other jurors feel or giving in to the pressure to vote a certain way; predisposed notions of guilt or innocence based on facts not in evidence; voting with an open mind of understanding the evidence, etc.????
And just for the record, on the jurys I have been on, the instructions we were given were exactly that... covering everything I just mentiioned, including that we were to consider if any laws were broken in the process of procuring evidence against the defendant, etc.
Were you ever instructed to consider the law for which the person was being charged? Whether it was a just law in the first place? And not just because a supreme court decided it was just, but whether YOU believe it was just.
The fugitive slave act is an example of jury nullification. Juries were not willing to punish people for helping free slaves. The law was considered constitutional and legally enforced, but many juries would not convict. No matter HOW MUCH "LEAGAL" EVIDENCE was presented proving he/she was guilty of violating the act.
WOW...you just don't give an inch.....always taking it to another direction andother level that best suits you.... Have you ever served on a Jury? Did you question that validity of the law that was being used? Did you speak up when questioned prior to being slected and tel lthem you only believe in laws that you think are just...which is none? What the hell world do you live in, anyway....is it LA LA LAND???
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Cicero is the guy who used to push "RULE OF LAW" (when it fit his purposes) now the "Rule Of Law" is "negotiable", depending on if the law fits Cissy's agenda.
Cicero is looking for loopholes... like the scam artist who will sell you a "proven" system to avoid paying your taxes... I worked with a John Bircher who kept telling us that you don't have to pay your income taxes... he read it in some Bircher pamphlet.
He didn't pay his taxes... until they arrested him. He ended up paying his tax, plus fines, plus interest over a 10 year payment plan, which included the entire amount of his retirement savings plan. He still spouts the John Bircher anti govt rhetoric, and still says that you don't have to pay your taxes... but he does.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Did you question that validity of the law that was being used? Did you speak up when questioned prior to being slected and tel lthem you only believe in laws that you think are just...which is none?
Huh? Your poor comprehension makes it difficult to have a debate with you. What does "speaking up" when questioned prior have to do with anything? How do you exonerate a person charged of a non-violent crime if you tell the prosecutor you believe the law is unjust before hand? That allows the prosecutor to stack the deck with jurors that will pass judgment without questioning the law itself.
Huh? Your poor comprehension makes it difficult to have a debate with you. What does "speaking up" when questioned prior have to do with anything? How do you exonerate a person charged of a non-violent crime if you tell the prosecutor you believe the law is unjust before hand? That allows the prosecutor to stack the deck with jurors that will pass judgment without questioning the law itself.
Your self-righteous mentality makes it difficult to discuss anything with you. You don't debate anything...you divert and attack everything. You can't hold a decent conversation wtihout injecting your self-righteous attitude and arrogance.
Oh, I get it...so you would LIE just to get on the jury so you could push your agenda in the decision process...... You haven't had a chance to hear any eveidence but have already determined the person is innocent becuase the law is unjust..... ....now that's DUE PROCESS and FAIR!!!! Are you for real!!!!! I can't believe I'm even having this conversation with the likes of a narrow minded, closed minded, self serving, chest thumping racist like you!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Cicero is the guy who used to push "RULE OF LAW" (when it fit his purposes) now the "Rule Of Law" is "negotiable", depending on if the law fits Cissy's agenda.
Jury nullification IS THE "RULE OF LAW". You took an oath to defend the Constitution and you don't know that? What is NOT the rule of law is killing a person extrajudicially WITHOUT giving the person a chance to stand before a jury of his/her peers.
So yes, I push the rule of law, and as part of the rule of law is jury nullification. It's funny how a few on the board get their panties in a wad for me even bringing it up.
Oh, I get it...so you would LIE just to get on the jury so you could push your agenda in the decision process....now that's DUE PROCESS and FAIR!!!! Are you for real!!!!!
Really??? So the people that were selected for juries and wanted to be selected for juries for the sole purpose of finding those charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act was "pushing an agenda"? Get real. No, they believed people were being punished for a ridiculously immoral law.
I remind you ALL, there are not facts or truth, THAT IS LEFT UP FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.
He still spouts the John Bircher anti govt rhetoric, and still says that you don't have to pay your taxes... but he does.
You don't have to pay your taxes. But in doing so you risk being found guilty of breaking the law by a jury. If I am on a jury that is charging somebody with income tax evasion, I have the power as a juror to vote my conscience and find that person not guilty.
You don't have to pay your taxes. But in doing so you risk being found guilty of breaking the law by a jury. If I am on a jury that is charging somebody with income tax evasion, I have the power as a juror to vote my conscience and find that person not guilty.
It finally happened!!! Cicero pictures himself on a jury and for the first time in his life.... He Is In A Position of Authority!!! He can almost smell the POWER!!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Really??? So the people that were selected for juries and wanted to be selected for juries for the sole purpose of finding those charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act was "pushing an agenda"? Get real. No, they believed people were being punished for a ridiculously immoral law.
I remind you ALL, there are not facts or truth, THAT IS LEFT UP FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.
PROOF POSITIVE that you ae self-righteous, self-serving and clueless. You just love to spin the direction the way you want when you are confronted on your lameness. SO...spin it all you want.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
unfortunately sitting on a jury is like sitting in a church pew....the pastor/priest no different than the prosecutors/defenders.... the judge being 'god' and the jurors being the poor poor hebrews that didn't know any better and wanted to return to egypt for the pots of meat and then built an idol while waiting for moses, then demanded a king.....
we've come a long way baby....tic
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
It finally happened!!! Cicero pictures himself on a jury and for the first time in his life.... He Is In A Position of Authority!!! He can almost smell the POWER!!!
PROOF POSITIVE that you ae self-righteous, self-serving and clueless. You just love to spin the direction the way you want when you are confronted on your lameness. SO...spin it all you want.
Your ad hominem attacks don't help. The thread was a thought provoking topic. Read a little about jury nullification instead of just make wacky pointless character attacks.
You truly are ignorant. No popping sound, just a sucking sound, as your head gets sucked further up your a**.
Logged
