Should Indiana Juries Nullify Bad Laws & Harsh Sentences For Traditional Pedosexuals Engaged In Nonviolent, Consensual Naked Play With Boys Or Girls?
A Convicted Pedosexual Speaks Out
After serving 15 years in prison for a crime of orally pleasuring a 12 year old boy, Tyler, one fateful night in July, I have come to learn all there is to know about the vindictive justice smack-you-in-the-face modern christians dearly love in Indiana – and across the nation.
Before I was arrested and jailed, I was a career Army non-commissioned officer with over 14 years of honorable war time service. In a twinkling wink I had lost my hard fought honor to a corrupt justice system. The local prosecutor, Kim Dewitt, flanked by a high ranking police officer, and her deputy prosecutor worked tremendously hard at the bar to ensure that my trial was rapid, my defense ineffective, and my liberty stripped for decades. My defense counsel, Kurt R. Earnst, put on what I would later come to find out was the local poor man’s All-or-Nothing Defense. In Indiana this is seen as a legitimate and ethical defense ordinarily reserved for men and women who are too poor to afford a private attorney. The foundation of the All-or-Nothing Defense is for the defense attorney, in my case Kurt R. Earnst, to do practically nothing. As my attorney he tells me that it “is the prosecutor’s burden to prove you guilty.” Then he says, “You don’t have to prove anything. Not one thing. If they can’t prove their case, you win!” So, for a Class A Felony, with a possible 50 year sentence, I get a measly 14 hours of half-ass lawyering. But, being naive and unschooled in the criminal code and jury trials primarily, I aired my grievances with the judge, then watched for two days as the prosecutors paraded witnesses in and out of the courtroom. Without any major objections from the defense and with no witnesses to present for my side – thanks to Kurt R. Earnst – I was quickly found guilty.
On sentencing day, I was awarded 40 years in prison for the single act of orally pleasuring a consenting 12 year old boy. No violence. No threats. No force. No cohersion. No kidnapping. No injury. Just oral pleasure. Which brings me to my next issue…
Many things about the justice system puzzle me. But I will only address a single issue – Jury Nullification.
How many of you ordinary citizens have even heard about this legal phrase in civics class in high school? How about in your history class, or in any class for that matter? I bet none of you have ever heard of Jury Nullification. Which is why this article is so damn important.
Jury Nullification – Absolute Power in The Hands of One Juror
The reason only a fraction of the citizens in any given state have heard about the power of a jury to nullify a law is a crooked one. Prosecutors, with the help of their associations and dues paying members, have worked tremendously hard to keep this knowledge suppressed. Jury Nullification technically gives irrevocable, absolute veto power to anyone juror, some, or all of them, to use as he, she, or they see(s) fit.
Jury Nullification basically means the jury has deliberately rejected the evidence tending to prove guilt or simply refuses to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury (meaning no final instructions will be given by the judge to jurors explaining this right. It’s knowledge and power is intentionally hidden from the jury.) Only jurors who are aware of this right can exercise it.
Jury Nullification Defined By Wikipedia
Wikipedia explains it this way: “Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury can vote a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government’s law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking a government’s law.”
Jury Nullification Applied In The State of Indiana
Now, let me give you the views and opinions from the highest court in Indiana – the Indiana Supreme Court. Its opinion is the actual law of the state. Justice Rucker was reading the opinion of the case in Holden v. State. This criminal case had just been decided and ustice Ruker begins by reminding the appellants and appellees that Holden, convicted of forgery, was asking for the Indiana Supreme Court to reverse his convictions because Holden was under the impression that Article I, Section 19, of the Indiana Constitution gave him the legal right to have the jury instructed by the trial court judge of the power of Jury Nullification. Holden’s attorney, arguing before the Supreme Court, wanted the jury instruction to read-, in part, “[w]hile this provision does not entitle you to return false verdicts, it does allow you the latitude to refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when justice so requires.” Basically, Holden’s attorney believed that Jury Nullification included the right of the jury to nullify the law and find a man or women innocent in spite of what anyone else may think or believe.
Here’s Justice Rucker reading the Court’s decision: “Although there may be some value in instructing Indiana jurors that they have a right to “refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when justice so requires,” the source of that right cannot be found in Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution. This Court’s latest pronouncement on the subject is correct: '[I]t is improper for a court to instruct a jury that they have a right to disregard the law. Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case.’ Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 946 (Ind.1994). The trial court in this case properly refused to give Holden’s tendered instruction…Conclusion. We grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
The Indiana Supreme Court has decided to deny defendants the right to have an instruction tendered to the jury before deliberations which tells them in so many words that they may disregard the law. But other powers remain in full force. The defendant will still be able to have an instruction tendered to the jury that explains to the 12 jurors that even where the jury finds that the State has proven the statutory elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury still has the unquestioned right to determine whether in this case returning a verdict of guilty promotes fairness and the ends of justice. Holden does not prohibit Indiana juries from exercising their historic power to find in favor of a criminal defendant despite substantial contrary evidence.
If you are a pedosexual, or a friend or family member of a pedosexual (as this term is defined by IFA), or you believe in the injustices and cruelty of draconian criminal laws that sentence men and women to terms of incarceration beyond a decade for nonviolent, consensual offenses, we hope you will bare the power of Jury Nullification in mind when you are chosen for jury duty in your home town.
I don’t know whether this should be called jury pre-nullification, but it’s great to see citizens rise up against government overreach and refuse to enforce bad laws and worse punishments.