Kirsten Tynan on the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)
As Jason detailed in his post about our time in Montana, last week we were able to connect with Kirsten Tynan (and her awesome wrecking crew), a freedom fighter active with the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). As Kirsten explains in this video, FIJA is a non-profit that aims to inform individuals of their rights when serving on a jury. And though most people loath the idea of being on a jury, according to Kirsten, should you be confronted with such a situation you should seize it to ensure that justice is done. To make sure an innocent person is not found guilty of some offense or that laws that shouldn’t be on the books are nullified – an action known as jury nullification.
Do yourself a favor and check out the many stellar resources (including a forum) available on FIJA’s website. And if you like what you see, consider throwing them a few bucks, because, as Kirsten notes, some day you may be the defendant targeted by government prosecutors that is depending on someone in the jury box to be a fully informed juror.
Pete,
WTF! I make a case for Adam going to Washington to do this very thing and YOU make an argument that the legal system isn’t voluntary and basically shit on my idea. Now you’re all for it?
I don’t see anywhere that he said he’s all for it. He just let me make my case and then recapped it.
The legal system is coercive and juries have been perverted as part of that. But juries did not originate with government, and jurors are not to be agents of the state but rather independent individuals acting as the defendant’s last peaceful line of defense against government tyranny. So although the MHD folks may not necessarily agree with what I was saying, I do hope that I provided some food for thought on how acting as an independent juror can prevent some very grave injustices from happening to decent and peaceful people.
Thanks, Kirsten, for laying out credible arguments for serving on a jury. I’d always kind of figured that if I was tapped for a drug war case or a property seizure case, of course I’d go. But I never thought in terms of other types of cases. I now understand that even cases with no obvious tie to individual liberty also matter.
I’ve only been called up once–for a manslaughter case–but was “de-selected” when I voiced my opinion of (most) lawyers. The judge, being a lawyer of course, didn’t care much for my attitude. Next time I’ll be far more demure.
Kristen,
I’ve been a big fan of the organization for a while, hence my suggesting it to Adam in August.
http://motorhomediaries.com/summons-for-jury-duty-no-way/
I just find it funny the purpose of the site is educational/instructional but when offered a non-expert opinion generally espousing the same goals you share. I’m told it doesn’t fit into the MHD narrative.
But you being a qualified member of an organization get the benefit of the doubt and a video post.
I obviously harbor no ill will to you or the organization, I am in complete agreement with the stated goals.
I’m just commenting on the duplicity of the MHD crew when it comes to having a consistent concept of “Liberty”
IMHO FIJA does great work and I enjoyed the vid (Thanx MHD and Kirsten!).
I would love to serve on a jury here in LA where one must get two to nullify. It would be challenging and could be very satisfying…
–
jp
Emily and jp, I just want to take a minute to point you to our Surviving Voir Dire (link goes to a .pdf file) brochure which contains some useful tips for not getting disqualified from a jury.
Maybe 10 years or so ago, I was in the pool of people being questioned with regard to a drug case in Arizona. The charges were possession of drugs (a small quantity of cocaine, I think) and possession of drug paraphernalia (a ziploc baggie that contained said drugs).
During voir dire, another potential juror was asked by the judge if he knew the witness for the prosecution to which the juror responded that he did know the witness (a cop) and that the witness was under investigation for evidence tampering or something like that which would have been very relevant to the case. He was dismissed by an angry judge who then instructed the rest of us to disregard that information about the witness. It was apparent from the judge’s behavior that this information about the witness was not going to be disclosed to the jury.
Later during voir dire, I was asked (1) did I believe in legalization of drugs? (yes), (2) which ones? (all of them), and (3) did I believe I could judge the case impartially in spite of my belief and render a fair verdict (yes, I said thinking to myself that I might be the only one there who could render a fair verdict). I was not dismissed immediately, but I was also eventually not selected as one of 12 jurors from a pool of 18 people who remained after questioning.
I look back on that case with so much regret even today. What if that other guy and I had kept our mouths shut? What if one of us or both had gotten on that jury? How would that defendant’s life be different today? What did he lose because we were not in that deliberation room?
I was all set to vote Not Guilty and stick to it had I gotten on the jury. But in my ignorance, I pretty much did everything that could be done to get myself excluded from that jury before I had a chance to make a difference. Had I known about and studied that brochure before I went to jury duty, I would have known how to answer the questions I was asked without making myself a target for removal. I think about that often.
Thanks, Kirsten. That was quite enlightening. I now have a much better idea of how to field those voir dire questions.
@Chris thanks for your comments. As Kirsten noted, by posting this video I’m not advocating one thing or another regarding juries, the legitimacy of the court system and the best ways to lessen (or eliminate) the scope of government actors over our lives in this area.
MHD is trying to document the broad freedom movement. There are some folks we interview that we agree with pretty much everything they say and others whom we find overlap but not on everything. As with every other decision the decision to sit on a jury and (whether you seek to nullify bad laws as Kirsten/FIJA advocate or not) is subjective.
One of the surest ways to lessen State oversite over our lives is not to seek to reform government but to ignore it to the greatest extent possible. If someone chooses not to sit on a jury that’s their choice (obviously having weighed the potential negative repercussions from the State, but that may by itself help to demonstrate the coercion used by gov.). If they decide to sit on a jury and try to nullify bad laws that’s their choice as well.
The purpose of posting this video is to disseminate information – so people can make more-informed decisions. As Kirsten explained, most jurors are not told of their rights by judges (for obvious selfish reasons). This video hopefully helps reduce some of that asymmetry of information.
Does that make sense?
I actually agree with a lot of Pete’s and Adam’s comments in that other thread. I read the thread and gave it considerable thought before I decided what I wanted to say and it continues to pop into my mind even now days later. That thread is why I really tried to emphasize that as a juror you are not acting as an agent of or for the state but rather acting in defense of someone against the state.
I agree with Adam that he owns his body (in fact, FIJA has a brochure called Who Owns Your Body? (link is a pdf file) ) and should not be threatened, coerced or forced into serving on a jury or punished for not doing so. I do not consider it anyone’s responsibility, obligation, civic duty or whatever to serve on a jury. I merely extend an open invitation for people to take advantage of that opportunity if it opens up to them, and I do my best to make a good case for them to do so.
I agree with Adam that the jury system as we know it today is not a suitable medium for dispensing justice. Where some semblance of justice happens to be served in the legal system, it seems more often in spite of the system than because of it these days.
I don’t dismiss a jury altogether, though, as an reasonable means by which to dispense justice in certain circumstances. Certainly a jury has no business even being handed a case in which there is no victim nor should it be tampered with by government procedures stacking the system against the defendant. But I do think that in some cases a jury would be the most just way to deal with an injustice. I can think of many cases where a victim cannot hold a wrongdoer accountable (example: a man with no family and friends was killed by a drunk driver in my county and there was nobody to speak on his behalf when the defendant stood there chuckling and joking even as he confessed and cut a plea deal) or where a victim will not fairly dispense justice (example: I seem to recall a story some years back about one of the leaders of a national gun control organization seeking out and shooting a young man who she mistakenly thought had killed her child).
Yes, if they gave a trial and no jurors showed up, it might all be over and the legal system might come crashing down. But I don’t believe we live in a world where no jurors would show up. I just don’t think that is where most residents of the United States, or even of any other country, are today. I think we constitute a small minority, and I base my pro-freedom strategies on that.
So let’s take a town around say the size of Keene, NH as an example. With about 23,000 people (per Wikipedia), let’s say there are around 6,000 potential jurors. Now say even as many as half of them ignore their jury summonses. It seems to me like that would leave plenty other jurors to rubber stamp stacked legal proceedings. And those jurors would be the worst kind- busybodies happy to do the work of the state so long as it does not tax their minds too much nor conflict with watching American Idol. On the other hand how many people would go free if those same people did their best to get on those juries by not volunteering information, by answering questions vaguely, etc.? Even if it was just a fraction of that, perhaps just a few hundred, those people might actually be able to make a dent in the convictions that are actually accomplished. To me the numbers today point to taking advantage of jury service instead of ignoring it.
I agree with Pete that certainly the government should not have a monopoly on (nor actually any part in) dispensing justice. However, in my view, if I were to avoid jury service I would essentially be ensuring that monopoly because whoever that defendant is on whose jury I am now not serving is likely solely at the mercy of twelve government toadies doing what they are told. If I get on that jury, though, I can break that monopoly by rendering a just verdict based on my conscience and ability to reason.
I also don’t particularly view the actual act of jury service as educational. I consider it more of a relief effort for the innocent, and I think that is a worthy enough effort in itself to warrant my time and attention.
I agree that ignoring the government is often a great response to it, and I frequently do so myself. However, I suspect that even Pete and Adam would agree with me that is not always practical as evidenced by their showing up in court on various occasions and by Adam responding to the jury summons “not wanting to give the state a reason to kidnap me”. Sometimes the consequences are very grave for ignoring the state, and it may behoove us from time to time not to simply ignore it.
Jury duty is an interesting case. It is very easy to blow off jury duty. I have done so myself with zero consequence. From that perspective, it would be very easy to ignore the state by ignoring a jury summons. But when I look at it from the point of view of the defendant, the consequences are very grave.
Adam has been screwed by the legal system repeatedly. It wasn’t really a practical option for him to ignore the state and not show up for court or not be in jail or that sort of thing. And as he has written, the consequences of this injustice perpetrated by the state have extended for him far beyond the jail cell in ways that cannot necessarily be ignored easily or with reasonably low risk.
I think about cases like his and weigh the benefit of me ignoring the state and blowing off jury service against the orders of magnitude large consequences for a defendant like Adam. There is obviously a much, much larger cost for the defendant I am not there to help than there is a benefit for me in ignoring the state summons to participate on a jury. I have no moral obligation to serve on that jury, but I prefer to take advantage of an opportunity to be there for that innocent person than to leave him at the mercy of a merciless and unjust system.
I know that one day if I find myself sitting there as the defendant, I hope someone will be in that jury box looking out for me. And I hope like hell that if things in Jones County get to a jury, someone on that jury will be there to make sure that Adam, Pete, and Jason go free.