CONCORD, New Hampshire (PNN) - June 29, 2012 - On June 18, Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, which reads:
A Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.
Nullification advocate Tim Lynch, of the Cato Institute, says, “This is definitely a step forward for advocates of jury trial. Allowing counsel to speak directly to the jury about this subject is something that is not allowed in all courthouses outside of New Hampshire – so this is good. I am concerned, however, that this language does not go far enough. We don’t know how much pressure trial judges will exert on defense counsels. If the attorney’s argument is too strenuous, the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the law as described by the court, not the defense. I’m also afraid what the jurors hear will too often depend on the particular judge
and, then, what that judge wants to do in a particular case.”
The criminal justice community has become increasingly concerned about the policy implications of jury nullification, especially as jury nullification manifests itself in hung juries. A number of communities, especially in Kalifornia, report that up to one-quarter of all criminal jury trials routinely result in mistrials due to jury deadlock.
Strictly defined nullification isn't always distinguishable from doubts about the strength of a case, since the two tend to run together when jurors are skeptical about the credibility and legitimacy of pig thug cops and fascist courts. People with doubts about the law bring acquittals or deadlock juries without painting their actions in political colors.
