Attachment G - Jeffrey Thomas Maehr

Right to a Fully Informed Jury, and right to present facts of such.

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution provides for a Jury trial of one's peers in any criminal case involving $20 or more. This right is protection for every American against unjust government or unjust laws which do not serve the common good. Oftentimes, government and other elements of society have agendas, and work to force these agendas onto the public, even against the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The Jury is the sole authority in said criminal cases to decide whether the law is just, the facts are true or not and whether said "crime" is actually a crime, with an injured party.

Ever since the despicable Supreme Court decision in Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895, which stated that juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn't have to inform juries of this right, all judges now neglect to inform juries that they have the right to judge both facts and law. Judges love power and control, and are criminally negligent in serving the public or defending people's rights.

The IRS has, for decades, used illegal and unconstitutional force, fraud, and Jury ignorance, to convict EVERY American of ANY income tax related crime, with support from the court. Jury nullification is a right of all juries, and court case law supports this element of our judicial system. The Jury has the right to hear the facts of the case, as well as the law of the case, judge both, on conscience or the merits of case, and ANY evidence on behalf of the accused cannot be withheld or suppressed if it is pertinent to the law and the facts and to the accused's defense under all applicable Laws:

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1).

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...." "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, (to acquit or disregard unfair or unjust laws - JTM) and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power."

"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132. (See also State of Georgia vs. Brailford, et al 3 Dall, 1, and U.S. vs. Moynihan, 417 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

"Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine." Judge David L. Bazelon, Dissent in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

The jury is there, by design, "to prevent oppression by the Government" and to "protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968).

The jury's role "as a check on official power" is in fact "its intended function." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86-87 n.8 (1986).

A directed verdict for the state would be not merely unconstitutional--it "would be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice," since "the discretionary act of jury nullification would not be permitted." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 199 n.50 (1976) (plurality opinion).

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).

The jury's power to acquit out of justice or mercy is a constitutionally protected right. If not their right, it is at least the defendant's firmly settled right that he insist on a jury with such power, regardless of whether the proof of his technical legal guilt is literally overwhelming and uncontradicted. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-82 (1993).

Our system of justice is unflinchingly committed to the liberty of criminal juries to "err upon the side of mercy," Jackson, 443 U.S. at 317, or to "refuse to convict even though the evidence supported the charge." Gregg, 428 US. at 199 n.50.

Telling a jury they "must" convict where guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a serious misstatement of the law and "an error of the most egregious nature." Proceedings of the 53rd Jud. Conf. of the D.C Circuit, 145 F.R.D. 149, 175 (1992) (Remarks of R. Kenneth Mundy, Esq.).

Under our Constitution, by design, a defendant is entitled to have his fate decided by a jury even if the evidence of his guilt is undisputed and decisive. Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 277. This is because criminal jurors are entitled to "refuse to convict even though the evidence supported the charge," and any legal system which would strip jurors of that discretion would be "totally alien to our notions of criminal justice." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 199 n.50 (1976).

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

"it is not only his right, but his duty - to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (John Adams- Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

"In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law." (Lysander Spooner, "Jury Power" by L. & J. Osburn)

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

All Americans are expected to know the law, and to conform to it. I base all I do on the actual facts of law, whether Constitutional law, or statutory law. I am expected to know and ACT on this factual evidence, Constitutional law superseding statutory laws if necessary. I also have the right to request answers to questions on the laws and statutes from those who purport to have jurisdiction over me on such matters, and I have made such inquires. I can ONLY use, as any defense or legal position I take, the actual LAWS I am expected to know, and I claim all rights and authority of law to use said laws or statutes in ANY court or proceedings as my defense of my actions.

"...a statute which imposes a tax upon an assumption of fact which the [presumed] taxpayer is forbidden to controvert is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment." United States Supreme Court, Heiner v. Donnan 285 U.S. 312 (1932)

"...irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." United States Supreme Court, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973)

"A fundamental requirement of due process is "the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 . It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."United States Supreme Court, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965)

Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis has cleared the way for Jury members to also question the witness to obtain satisfactory answers in any civil or criminal court proceedings.

I also claim the right of Jury nullification instruction, and that any Jury I meet in court for any future trial will be provided the full documentation of this Jury right of nullification as part of my rights to a full defense and Jury instruction.

Data Sources:

Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Copyright © 2006-2008 All rights reserved.