4 Boxes of Freedom — the Soap box, the Ballot box, the Jury box and th Bullet box

One of the things I enjoy doing in the Republican Party is serving on the various platform committees. Over the years, I have chaired county, district and state platform committees. In 2008, my political dream was realized when I had the honor of representing Iowa on the national platform committee.

Several years ago, while serving on the Linn County Platform Committee, I met Dell Lawrence. Dell is a quiet unassuming man who seems like he would be a great grandfather. But in the years that we have been friends I learned that Dell has a passion — a passion for freedom. 

In that committee, Dell introduce the following plank (and he has introduced it every year since!)

We support legislation that would allow juries to be informed of their Common Law right and duty to consider both the facts and the law in reaching just verdicts.

I had never heard of such a thing. Isn't that what juries do? Well it is not so. Juries listen to judges and are often instructed precisely how they must rule. But the people are sovereign and it is ultimately the jury that represents the people.

Some would argue but isn't this what happened in the South when juries refused to convict whites for crimes against blacks? Yes, but it is the same principle whereby juries in the North refused to convict people for violating the Fugitive Slave Act.

Juries have the right and responsibility to decide and equally important they have the right and responsibility to know.

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 decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

John Jay,
First Chief Justice of the United State

In the recent Mark Becker trial a great injustice was done to the sovereignty of the people. Becker was convicted of killing Aplington-Parkersburg football coach Ed Thomas. Becker's defense team presented an insanity defense. Whether Becker is/was insane I will leave for another discussion. My concern has to do with one poignant procedural moment during the trial.

The jury had been deliberating for almost four days and were at a deadlock. No one denied that Becker had shot Thomas the question was, was Becker guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury sent a note to the judge and according to KWWL:

.. jurors sent a note to Judge Carroll asking what would happen if Mark Becker was found legally insane. Judge Carroll responded that jurors did not need to concern themselves with the potential consequences of their decision. Carroll added the consequences of the verdict is a matter for the court and not for the jury. [emphasis added]

The judge essentially told the jury that it was none of their business. This unelected judge contemptuously withheld critical information from the jury.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both ...

Today it seems nothing could be further from the truth whether Varnum or Becker today, judges seem to believe that they are supreme above the legislature, the executive and worse the above people.

If my last post didn't earn me a membership in the esteemed society of Keepers Of Obscure Knowledge (KOOKs) — then this post probably will ;-)

Comments

[Chelle]

Wow. You certainly got my brain juices going with this post. I'm going to be thinking about and probably discussing this topic with my friends tonight. I've never really given juries much thought, let alone in the Becker case. Hmmm. I always have to be careful when I read your blog. You get me thinking so much sometimes that I lie in bed at night and ponder your points. LOL.

[Jerry]

Chill out, Chelle. Except for his claim that the bullet box is a related to freedom, Chung has a good point.

This is sometimes called jury nullification. For example, if you think the drug laws are draconian and you get on a jury trial, you can "nullify" the law by finding the drug user "not guilty," even if you know he had the drugs. You are refusing to allow the punishment that would follow from a guilty verdict.

In the Becker case the jury probably wanted to know if Becker would get the revolving door treatment again. That seems like a fair question to consider in reaching their verdict.

Iowa makes the result of a guilty verdict quite clear: life w/o parole. But the result of an insanity verdict are not clear. That biases the jury, in my opinion.

Thanks for the post, KOOK.

[Ken Bloom]

I feel there are only two reasons a person kills. Insanity or "fight or flight". There are a lot of people who kill that appear to not have a grasp of another person's rights (insanity). All rights only extend to the point of where they infringe upon another person's rights. If you actually think about the laws - every person is allowed to kill at least one person. After that it is the enforcement of the laws that hopefully prevents that person from killing again. You cannot punish them for murder if it did not happen.

The "fight or flight" is built in to our desire to survive. When given no choice then "fight" become automatic in most people when "flight" is not available. To me that is the hard decision to be on a jury to decide if they should be convicted.

Mark Becker had a history of mental instability and the "system" did not deal with him effectively. Not knowing the treatment if he was deemed not guilty by insanity (which maybe should have been a plea bargain of the defense) I would most likely also had to give a guilty verdict.

The shame of a jury decision I see in the man in Minnesota that had a run away Toyota and never changed his story. Yet he has spent 4 years in confinement for something that he had very little control of. There is the possibility that he could have avoided hitting the other car.

Here in Iowa we have the vehicular homicide law and (I don't drive a Toyota) but fear the overreaching of this law. Yes, I am expected to maintain my car but if it does not show a symptom until the accident then should I really be convicted of something that I had no knowledge of. I also do not like the anti-lock brakes and wish that I had the option to disable them or make the manufacturer responsible for me not having full control of my car.

From what I have seen in recent cases of other people be convicted on poor evidence. That worries me.

There have also been cases settled before a verdict because the precedence that could be set would have been devastating and far reaching on the interpretation of the law.

We live in a balance of laws that have taken the minds of people like Jay, Hamilton, Madison and others to construct some civility to our life. It is also unfortunate that so many people today have little knowledge of this balance.
Ken Bloom