Colorado county treasurer tells jurors they are answerable "only to God almighty"

[DealMonkey]

Another case of God being above the law? Mark probably just didn't have enough cash for a 2-1/2 ton monument in the courthouse rotunda.

Answer to God, Official Tells Potential Jurors

GOLDEN, Colo. ? A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.

Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall (search), a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.

The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification" (search) -- a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.

"You are above the law!" the booklet says. "As a juror in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to God almighty."

Said Paschall: "I want people to understand the form of government that we have and the rights and freedoms that went before. If it raises eyebrows, I think it perhaps ends up waking people up."

Some questioned whether Paschall has a right to distribute the material at a government office, and County Attorney Bill Tuthill (search) said he was looking into the issue.

"I don't think it is appropriate to pass these out in the treasurer's office in the county building," County Commissioner Pat Holloway said.

Added Cal Johnston (search), chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party: "What is the county treasurer doing handing out books like that?"

"He is using his office as a pulpit for his conservative opinions," Johnston said.

During last year's campaign, Paschall vowed to speak out on Second Amendment (search) issues.

"I have said from the very beginning I was not going to be like any other treasurer," he said. "I'm a passionate man, and I'm willing to stand up for the things I believe in."

While the conservative concept is relatively new, juries have always in effect practiced nullification from time to time. Juries refused to convict people who harbored runaway slaves before the Civil War, sold alcohol during Prohibition or resisted the draft during the Vietnam War.

 

[xochi]

I didnt think the county treasurer had anything to do with picking jurors?

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: xochi
I didnt think the county treasurer had anything to do with picking jurors?

I think he's just trying to be a jackass.


/flame on!

 

[Wag]

Trying to get unemployment?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

A fundamentalist by any other name....
Why can't people keep thier religious convictions to themselves? Are they so insecure in their faith that they have to shove their personal beleifs down everyone elses throat? I would have loved to see people's reactions if a Muslim had done this very same thing. I hope they fire this dumbass.

 

[rjain]

so much for the rule of law...

 

[daniel1113]

Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

 

[rjain]

how do you know how God would judge you? what is the point of a democracy if all laws are thrown out when it comes time to punish?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

Uhh... yes, they do. They have to answer to the law. In fact, in certain unusual cases, it is possible that a judge could throw out a jury's decision if he could determine that their decision could not have been reached within the law.
Christian that I am, I believe that God is far too vague a concept that is far too different for too many people to the controlling aspect in a democracy. We need the Rule of Law, or we will descend into mob rule and self-tyranny. Read the Bible... it's says that all followers should respect and follow the laws of the governments that they live under.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

You don't know much about how the legal system works do you?

 

[kage69]

Small beliefs for small minds. These holy-rollers need to get a friggin clue.

 

[gistech1978]

i guess its his choice if he wants to waste $500-600 of his own money.

 

[Wag]

Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

So athiests don't have jury duty?

 

[Zebo]

This man is absolutly right. Jury nullification has been preserved by the SC in several cases before it.

The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification" (search) -- a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.

Not only that many libertarian groups avocate jury nullification in drug, prostitution and other consentual crime cases.

You guys get to worked up when GOD in invoked... IMO he means it metaphoically.. Your heart..Your god whatever...do what's right not what the police state asked. It's your right and moral obligation.


Keep it real

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

That isn't true. Jurors can end up in jail, which is certainly answering to something other than God.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

That isn't true. Jurors can end up in jail, which is certainly answering to something other than God.

Right show us one case.




John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. "

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."


and on and on

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, he makes a very good point. Jurors do not have to answer to anyone in regards to their decision, except to their own conscious and a higher power if he/she believes in one. I wouldn't want to make a dishonest decision if I knew I would be judged by God...

You don't know much about how the legal system works do you?

No, why don't you explain it instead of posting condensending gibberish? I am interested.

 

[Tom]

"Right show us one case."


link

 

[rjain]

The concept of judicial review is perfectly fine with me. However, judicial review is not exactly jury review. Juries are hardly aware of the consequences of their actions outside the specific case involved. It takes an objective, experienced, logical, thoughtful person to really understand what effects overturning the legislative branch's work will really have. In the quotes above, were those quotes using "jury" to mean 12 J. Random Dumbasses or a panel of well-respected judges?