Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FIJA In South Dakota

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California September 21, 2002
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 21, 2002
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                         September 21, 2002
      HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
      T-ShirtMe!                FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting

       FIJA's South Dakota
      Amendment A
      While some readers are sure to condemn the following published article as biased and misleading, J.A.I.L. finds no reason on this basis not to republish it as it is written.
      As a point in history, the author of J.A.I.L. and Red Beckman have personally known each other for over twenty years, although admittedly, this author has lost touch with him after Beckman was arrested, thrown in jail, his house burned while they held Beckman behind bars, and then released him. 
      Despite what is said below, never in his known friendship with Beckman has he heard any suggestion of anti-Semitism. But, then, consider the source - the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which organization is also currently slandering J.A.I.L. on their website as an "Extremist Organization," on a list with the KKK, Aryan Nations, and White Supremist organizations. Yet, when we challenged them on this, they say they did not accuse us of being anti-Semitic. 
      As to Larry Dodge, this author has had the opportunity of meeting him personally at speaking engagements, and Charles Key, the current leader of FIJA, is a member of Oklahoma J.A.I.L., and our organization openly supports Amendment A in South Dakota, and is looking forward to passage of FIJA's ground-breaking effort therein. 
      One here can imagine the propaganda that will be spewed out when J.A.I.L. appears on the ballot.

      Legal Affairs
      by Josh Saunders
      The Fully Informed Jury Association is a quirky little advocacy group
      based in Helmville, Montana—a town so small it wasn't even included in the last census. FIJA, which boasts roughly 3,000 supporters, is
      dedicated to the peculiar cause of jury nullification. In the words of
      one prominent FIJA activist, nullification is the conscientious "act of
      a criminal trial jury deciding to acquit in spite of proof of guilt
      beyond a reasonable doubt." As any trial lawyer will admit, rogue juries already vote with their consciences from time to time. But they're never supposed to, and FIJA wants that to change.

      Proponents of jury nullification range from the left-wing Nation
      columnist Alexander Cockburn to the archconservative Republican
      congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The pro-marijuana magazine High Times recently embraced the cause by declaring the FIJA activist Bob Newland its "Freedom Fighter of the Month," while Paul Butler, an
      African-American law professor at George Washington University, supports jury nullification as a tactic for combating institutional racism in the law. FIJA even appears to enjoy some loose support from far-right militia groups.

      Iconoclastic from the start, FIJA was founded in 1989 by Larry Dodge and Don Doig, two Montana residents concerned that government bureaucracies were growing less responsive to the will of the people. They saw jury nullification, in Dodge's words, "as a handle for the people to hold on to and steer the government." Dodge, a libertarian and picture-postcard photographer who holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Brown University, feared that the United States was "becoming a nation where power is applied top-down," and saw nullification as an important democratic check on the power of the government.

      While jury nullification might seem close to lawlessness, FIJA activists
      insist that it involves a principled acquittal—a decision based on a
      fundamental objection to the law in question, a rejection of a
      punishment deemed excessive, or a conscientious sympathy for the
      defense. Bob Newland suggests that nullification is particularly
      well-suited to so-called victimless crimes like marijuana possession or
      violations of helmet and seatbelt laws.

      Over the years, FIJA has spread its message by hosting seminars for
      defense attorneys, distributing pamphlets outside courthouses, and
      pushing promotional material like mugs and bumper stickers emblazoned with FIJA slogans ("Fully Informed Juries can rescue the Bill of Rights!"). The group has also sponsored legislative efforts in states such as Oklahoma and Arizona to force judges to inform juries of their nullification powers. All these efforts have failed: The bills usually die in committee, though some have passed one legislative house before losing in the other.

      But FIJA's fortunes may be changing. Not long ago, Dodge suggested that a ballot initiative to amend a state constitution would be more
      effective than pushing for legislation. In South Dakota, FIJA members
      responded by leaping into action, and an organization that Newland runs called Common Sense Justice mounted a campaign that collected
      approximately 32,000 signatures—eight percent of eligible voters in
      South Dakota, enough to put the initiative on the ballot this November.

      The initiative, dubbed Amendment A, doesn't mention juries at all. For
      tactical reasons, it frames the issue of jury nullification in terms of
      the rights of the accused. According to the proposed amendment, the
      accused have the usual Sixth Amendment rights—the right to a speedy and public trial, to be confronted by the witnesses against them, and so on—as well as an additional right to "argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws." Unlike FIJA's failed legislative efforts, Amendment A doesn't force judges to instruct juries of their nullification powers. Instead, it allows defense attorneys to introduce information that might encourage a nullification verdict. "It's a backdoor to jury nullification," Newland explains.

      Opposition to Amendment A has swelled rapidly. The South Dakota Trial Lawyers' Association and the State Bar Association have each released statements opposing the initiative. Jim Leach, a South Dakota lawyer who has publicly debated Newland about Amendment A, argues that the initiative defies the basic principles of the American criminal justice system. "We have a government of laws, not of people," he says. "The alternative to a government of laws is a system of vigilantism. This amendment is an attempt to do just that—to make the law what each person thinks it should be, rather than one system of laws for all.

      The Supreme Court appears to side with Leach. In 1895, the court
      clarified its position on jury nullification in Sparf et al. v. United
      States, a case concerning the murder convictions of two sailors. In its
      Sparf opinion, the court acknowledged that juries have the power to
      nullify—because of the Constitution's double jeopardy clause, an
      acquittal by jury is final, no matter what criteria the verdict is based
      on—but explicitly declined to recognize a right. If juries had the right
      to nullify, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for the majority,
      "counsel for the accused may. . . contend that what the court declares
      to be the law applicable to the case in hand is not the law."

      To nullification activists, the Sparf decision was a miscarriage of
      justice. Nullification, they claim, was part and parcel of the American
      criminal justice system until the late 19th century, just as the
      Founding Fathers intended. (One FIJA board member, Clay Conrad, makes this argument in a scholarly book on the subject, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine.) As an early example of nullification in action, supporters cite the famous 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the German printer accused of publishing libelous statements about the colonial governor of New York. The trial judge insisted that the jury could rule only on the factual question of whether Zenger had actually printed the papers, leaving the decision about their libelous nature to the court itself. The defense, however, argued that the jury ought to determine both the facts and the law—and it carried the day. Though the defense admitted from the start that Zenger had printed the papers, the jury found him innocent.

      By the time of the American Revolution, Larry Dodge argues,
      nullification was commonly accepted as a tactic for limiting the
      potential tyranny of the government. "The jury was designed to have a
      political function, not just a judicial function," he says. A FIJA
      pamphlet designed for prospective jurors invokes the words of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton to bolster its case. In 1771, Adams wrote that "It is not only [the juror's] 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."
      Hamilton, acting as a defense lawyer in a libel case in 1804, argued the
      point even more forcefully, stating that "it is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent."

      FIJA's historical case may seem compelling, but its arguments have been vigorously challenged. In an article in the Spring 2000 Case Western Reserve Law Review, David Pepper, then a clerk for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, asserted that nullification activists and scholars have fundamentally misinterpreted the powers that juries had before the Sparf decision. Early American juries had the right to "decide the law," Pepper concedes, but that right was "neither equivalent to today's proposed right to nullify, nor did it encompass the right to nullify." In the Zenger case, for instance, the defense argued that the judge was merely misinterpreting the law, and didn't propose rejecting the law altogether. Pepper also disputes the claim that men like Adams and Hamilton called on colonial juries to act as legislators to veto unpopular laws; rather, he argues, they expected juries to act as judges who might interpret the law differently than the trial judge.

      In addition to debates about FIJA's case on its scholarly and practical
      merits, there remains some question about FIJA's political ideology. The "Militia Watchdog" website of the Anti-Defamation League lists FIJA as a group to be concerned about, though the ADL doesn't go so far as to label FIJA a militia group. Travis McAdam, a researcher with the Montana Human Rights Network, says that "in our work looking at the so-called Patriot movement, we come across FIJA fairly regularly"—though he doesn't consider FIJA a central force in the movement. FIJA's close association with the cause of jury nullification, McAdam explains, and not FIJA itself, is the primary source of its appeal to right-wingers. Still, he claims that a number of people on the FIJA Board of Directors do have "lingering connections to extremist movements." One member is married to a former Ohio militia leader, he says, and another was kicked off Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign for alleged ties to white supremacists.

      Larry Dodge protests that FIJA's image has suffered from misleading
      press coverage. "Every time a controversial movement comes along and discovers that jury nullification might be able to help its cause, they latch on to it," he explains, adding that other groups often mix FIJA literature with their own and thus compromise his organization in the public eye. That said, Dodge admits that he got the idea for jury
      nullification from Red Beckman, a notorious tax protester in Montana
      known to the ADL and others for his anti-Semitic views. And though Dodge maintains that FIJA and Beckman have since gone their separate ways, he also admits that people with explicit militia ties or right-wing fundamentalist Christian politics have worked with FIJA in the past—though he stresses that they were later asked to dissociate
      themselves from the group. "We have never and still do not take sides on any substantive issue," he says. "We can't afford it. We are a
      process-oriented group looking for the jury system to be restored to its full glory."

      A case of guilt by association—or just a bad rap? Come November 5, the people of South Dakota will deliver their own verdict.

      Josh Saunders is a writer living in New York. He has written about
      politics and culture for Lingua Franca, Feed, and other publications.

      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.net
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  AddRemove@...
      E-Groups, sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
      Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.