True or False?  When you sit on a jury, you have the right to vote your
conscience.  True... "BUT"... it's extremely unlikely the judge will tell
you this, because the law doesn't require it.

Instead, expect the judge to tell you that you may consider "only the
facts" of the case and you are not to let your conscience, your opinion of
the law, or the defendant's motives to affect your decision.

How can people get fair trials if the jurors can't use conscience?

Many people don't get fair trials.  Too often, jurors actually end up
apologizing to the person they've convicted--or to the community for
acquitting when the evidence clearly established guilt.

Something is definitely wrong when jurors feel badly about their verdict. 
They should never be ashamed of their decision, or explain "I wanted to
vote my conscience, but the judge said we had to apply the law as it was
given to us, like it or not."

Most Americans are aware of their right to trial by jury, but how many know
that the jury has more power than anyone else in the courtroom--and that in
pursuit of a just verdict, jurors are free to judge the merits of the law
itself, its use in the case at hand, or the motives of the accused?

If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done
by computer.  It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions,
wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not
machines, to judge court cases.

Why don't judges tell juries their full range of rights?

In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide
neutral legal advice to the jury, but judges rarely advise jurors of their
rights.  And judges are not supposed to dismiss prospective jurors because
they admit having qualms with the law, or know about their right to judge
the law and its application.  But such dismissals are routine.

We can only speculate on why:  Disrespect for the vital concept of
"government of, by, and for the people?"  Unwillingness to part with their
power?  Ignorance of jurors' rights?  (Yes, some judges do not even know
about the rights of jurors.)

Worse, many judges and prosecutors, apparently anxious to reassure the
public that they stand for law and order, do their best to select jurors
they know from previous experience to be "conviction prone".  Then the
judge (wrongly) "instructs" them that they must reach a unanimous decision,
and soon, to avoid "overburdening the taxpayers."

Jurors are very rarely informed they may vote according to conscience, even
after swearing to "apply the law as given"--or told that it's better to
"hang" the jury than to violate one's conscience in order to reach
consensus.  These are some of  the reasons why FIJA was formed.

What is "FIJA?"

FIJA stands for Fully Informed Jury Association.  We are a nationwide
network of jury-rights activists and groups.  Our current project is also
known as "FIJA", the Fully Informed Jury Act or Amendment.

As law, FIJA would require that trial judges resume the former practice of
telling jurors about their right to judge both law and fact regarding each
and every charge against a defendant.  We want the judge, like everyone
else in the courtroom, to tell the whole truth and nothing but.

Resume?  Did judges fully inform jurors of their rights in the past?

Yes, it was normal procedure in the early days of our nation and before, in
colonial times.  America's Founders realized that trials by juries of
ordinary people, fully aware of their rights as jurors, would be essential
to preservation of our freedom.  As long as juries had the final say on the
laws of the land, the government would remain the servant, not the master,
of the people.

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this:  "I consider trial
by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can
be held to the principles of its Constitution."

John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror:  "It is
not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his
own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct
opposition to the direction of the court."

These sound like voices of hard experience.  Were they?

Yes.  Only decades had passed since freedom of the press was established in
the colonies when a jury decided John Peter Zenger was "not guilty" of
seditious libel.  He was charged with this "crime" for printing true, but
damaging, news stories about the Royal Governor of New York Colony.

"Truth is no defense", the court told the jury!  But the jury decided to
reject bad law, and acquitted.

Why?  Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its
rights: he told the story of William Penn's trial--of the courageous London
jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching what was then an illegal
religion (Quakerism).  His jurors stood by their verdict even though they
were held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days.

They were then fined and imprisoned for acquitting Penn--until England's
highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact, and to
find a verdict according to conscience.  It was exercise of that right in
the Penn trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech,
religious freedom, and peaceable assembly as individual rights.

American colonists regularly depended on juries to thwart bad law sent over
from England.  The British then restricted trial by jury and other rights
which juries had helped secure.  Result?  The Declaration of Independence
and the American Revolution!

Afterwards, to protect the rights they'd fought for from future attack, the
Founders of the new nation placed trial by jury--meaning tough, fully
informed juries--in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bad law--special-interest legislation which tramples our rights--is no
longer sent here from Britain.  But our own legislatures keep us well
supplied...  Now, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!

Why haven't I heard about "jury rights" before now?

In the 1890's, powerful special-interest pressures inspired a series of
judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights.  While no court has
yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or "bring in a
general verdict", some--hypocritically--have held that jurors need not be
told their rights!

That is why it is nowadays a rare and courageous attorney who will risk
being cited for contempt for informing the jury about its right without
obtaining the judge's prior approval.  It's also why the idea of jury
rights is not taught in (government) schools.

Still, the jury's power to reject bad law continues to be recognized, as in
1972 when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the jury has an

    "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the
instruction on the law given by the trial judge.  The pages of history
shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard
instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave
law." (473 F. 2d 1113)

What will happen when FIJA becomes law?

Three good things: (1) Unjustly accused persons and their trial jurors, as
well as crime victims and their communities--will more often be satisfied
that the jury system actually delivers justice;

(2) Legislators will have access to regular feedback from ordinary people,
sitting on juries, instead of mainly from special-interest groups and other
very political sources.  With better information, they can better represent
the will of the people;

(3) When the laws of the land respect the will of the people, as revealed
by their jury verdicts, the people, in turn, will show more respect for the
law.

Sounds good!  Where can I find some "FIJA Action" right now?

There are several current, exciting fronts: activists are working with
lawmakers for passage of FIJA legislation in some states, and are
attempting to put FIJA on the election ballot by citizen initiative in
others.  There are people distributing educational material (including this
brochure) in every state.  And, whenever our budget allows it, FIJA engages
in newspaper, radio, and television advertising.

In 1991 we named September 5th (the anniversary of William Penn's
acquittal) "Jury Rights Day", and handed out brochures at courthouses
around the U.S.A.  It's an annual event, and you're invited!

As with any right, the right of jurors to reject bad law resides in the
people, not the government--so all that is needed for people to use it is
to learn it!

It's time to act against injustice!

*   We need to regard every day as "Jury Rights Day".  Almost every day,
attempts are made to limit jury power, mostly via subtle changes in the
rules of court procedure, often directly by court decisions, or by the
creation of types of law which "do not require" jury trials for the
accused.

*   Far too many harmless people have gone to prison because their trial
juries were not fully and truthfully informed, to the point that the U.S.A.
now leads the entire world in percentage of population behind bars!  More
prisons are being built than ever before, and they will be filled largely
with people whose only "crime" was to displease the government "master",
not victimize anyone.

*   Likewise, there are dangerous criminals free on the streets--sometimes
because a jury thought it "had to" acquit after being instructed by the
judge, even though evidence of guilt was very clear.  This type of
injustice occurs much less frequently than does unreasonable or unnecessary
incarceration of harmless people, even though it typically receives more
publicity.  But here, too, "FIJA" might help.


                        --TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION--
               We'll send a free introductory information packet to
               you when you call 1-800-TEL-JURY, then tell (and
               spell) your name, address, and phone, on our tape.

                        --TO BECOME AN ACTIVIST TODAY--
               Copy and give this brochure to friends and family--
               or to jurors, among others, at the local courthouse.

                        --TO JOIN OR CONTRIBUTE TO FIJA--
               Send at least $15 to FIJA, P.O. Box 59, Helmville,
               MT 59843.  You will get both the FIJA introductory
               information packet and at least the next year's
               worth (4 issues) of our newsletter, the FIJActivist.

                        --TO TALK TO PEOPLE, NOT TAPES--
               Phone Don Doig, Kathy Ballard, or Larry Dodge at
               FIJA National HQ: 406-793-5550.
                                  Trial
                                Procedures
                                     &
                                 Evidence
                                 Workshops
                   for "In Pro Per/Sui Juris" Litigants
             Instructor: Jeffrey C. Thayer, Common Law Lawyer
                                     
                            9 Intensive Topics
                      1 1/2 Hour Video & 1 1/2 Hours
                         of Discussion Per Topic.

        1  -  Trial procedures and opening statements.
        2  -  Handling, marking, and admitting evidence.
        3  -  Using charts, graphs, and other demonstrative evidence.
        4  -  Form of direct questions & direct examinations.
        5  -  Cross examination.
        6  -  Use and examination of experts.
        7  -  Closing arguments.
        8  -  Selected pre-trial discovery.
        9  -  Selected pre-trial motions.

               3 days, Friday, Aug. 13th - Sunday, Aug, 15th
           Fri. 5pm - 10pm  *  Sat. 8am - 8pm  *  Sun. 8am - 6pm
                      2 Meal Breaks Saturday & Sunday
     Location: Common Law Legal Center, Van Nuys, California Republic
                 $395.00 Per Person  *  $595.00 Per Couple

                             REGISTRATION FORM

               Name: ___________________________________________

               Address: ________________________________________

                        ________________________________________

               City: ___________________________________________

               Phone: A.C.(     ) ________________

               ________ Number of people  @ 395.00 = ___________

               ________ Number of Couples @ 595.00 = ___________

                                     TOTAL TO REMIT: ___________

Make money orders payable to: Jeffrey Thayer
2nd Judicial District, 14557 Erwin St. Van Nuys, California Republic
