The soap box: effectively gone
The ballot box: gone- massive voter fraud
Now the jury box: gone- see below.
What is left?

Kalifornia State Supreme Court rules jury nullification illegal and will result in juror dismissal
[url]www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S066106.PDF[/url]

i dont give a shit anymore, let'em do what they want, they will anyway

The legislature is working pretty hard to eliminate Box #4..

Now there's an interesting judical strategy.  If the juror won't render the judgement you wanted, we'll replace him with one that will!  Why even bother with a jury then?

When R2 comes, it will probably start in the PRK.  The ballot box is now gone, the jury box is now gone, which only leaves the cartridge box.  the only question is "when."

California's subjects have been losing the cartridge box for years.  Most recently there are the big assault weapons ban and the list of handguns that the state allows its subjects to own.  The real goal there is to turn all gun owners into criminals, so they can be future political prisoners.  Then they have to all the dangerous dissidents into concentration camps to keep society safe.  It's happened in many other places before, it looks like its our turn next.

well, don't start yet guys.  It sounds like you are "jumping the gun".  I want to finish out the new Dark Angel season, then you can blow up the PRK.  Please.

NSF

On another thought, I think the guy was right, if he thought a law was a bad law, thats a check and balance thing, right?  He doesn't as a juror have to uphold any law he doesn't see fit.  that's his choice.  right?

NSF

I believe the judge instructs the jury as to the basis for making a decision. And I think the judge usually says the task at hand is to determine if law has been broken, regardless of how the jurors feel about the law.

I was speaking to my father (retired lawyer) about this and he says there is probably no need for overt jury nullification unless someone is trying to make a statement. As he explained it, a juror can nullify without refusing to hear the evidence or refusing to participate in the panel’s discussions. All he has to do is stick to his not guilty opinion and the judge will declare a mistrial. It’s then up to the prosecution if they want to pursue the case by having a new trial. And you don’t risk a contempt of court charge this way.

So, for instance, if I saw some poor sucker under the gun for SB23, I would just say “not guilty” and leave it at that. Of course, the judge will try to make your life miserable, but in the end it’s your decision, not his.

That ruling is interesting in that it states the juror refused to "hear any discussions". It looks like he was trying to nullify. Perhaps if he participated but just stuck to his guns a mistrial would have resulted? It looks like jury nullification received a major blow with that ruling.

[-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-]
[center]FUCK KALIFORNIA![/center]
[-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-][-!-!-]

Let's just cut it off...[chainsaw]

And push it into China! [chainsawkill]

Let the liberals move THERE instead of trying to bring that SHIT over HERE!

Samhain44[-!-]

Let's get rid of the State of New York as well since the voters there elected Hillary Clinton and are in for a gun-free state thanks to Schumer and HRC.

i am all for it, just lemme get the f*ck out of here 1st.....

Easy way to beat that B.S.  Just say, "The prosecution did not adequately prove their case.  Not guilty." Nothing else.  I like to see them prove misconduct with that.

From what I read, the guy stated that he thought the law was wrong, so he would not convict. If he just sat back and said just "not guilty," he would have been fine.  You can't give these socialist judges anything they can bite into. We have to be prepared to look them in the eye and silently tell them to kiss your ass!

The incident occurred when defendent was 18, so it's possible they had sex prior to his being 18.  The having sex with a minor charge is bogus, along with other hyped up charges.  The juror had a valid point.

The way I understand it, you vote guilty or not guilty.  If you think the law is wrong, vote Not Guilty. I see the Statuatory Rape issue as being very gray.  If I was 17 and having sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, no crime has been committed.  The day I turn 18, I'm suddenly in trouble?!?!  Makes no sense.  I understand the need to protect minors from predatory adults.  I don't understand the need to pile on misdemeanor charges to inflate a prosecutor's score card.

On the other hand, the juror was being a bit disingenuous when he was stating that he didn't want to "stain this young man's record" with a spurious Statuatory Rape cherge.  Hell, the defendant was being chraged with rape, torture, assault, etc.  The statuatory add-on was very minor.  I could understand if he said something like "I don't believe in piling on lesser charges in order to make the prosecutor look good.  But I've got no problem with barbecueing him for rape, torture, etc."

Bottom line:
1. Defendant was a scumbag
2. Juror was an idiot
3. Exclusive of the above court case, California is going to hell.

So there. [:P]

I agree with Uncle Frank's assessment.

i always thought statutory rape was a felony
heh in some states u can shoot people for statatory rape and it would be justified of course youd lose in civil court any way back to Comifornia i say declare em a soverng nation and then nuke the sh*t out of it [railgun]
becouse as long as there a state they can still f*ck with us