OWSTER PROTESTORS, DON'T JUST GET ARRESTED. ARREST  THE CITY RIGHT BACK! FRIGHTEN a judge!  Demand a jury trial ..COST THE CITY BIG MONEY!

700 arrests in NYC on the bridge last month, l00 new ones in November. And new arrests in NYC AND LA DAILY, 3000 arrests so far.. OWSTER protestors gotta fight back. CHESS MOVE REQ'D!! If each protestor pleaded NOT GUITY and exercised his right to a jury trial, the state/ city would back off! The arrests which are
an inconvenience might totally stop! CITY doesn't want trials.

I saw this during my 'cat' beef. I re-po mykitten stolen from my back garden, not an hour earlier --by a crazy senile 85 yr old cat lady neighbor, she hits me with assault, trespassing and theft of HER cat! D.A. / PROSECUTOR was going for all three! I get in court, I say 'jury trial please.' IN TEN SECONDS the city does a whirlabout on those multiple charges. They say, ok, we reduce charges to just trespassing. Fine I say. Turns
out city is allergic to jury trials. Something to do with half a million buck cost for each trial. Times 700 protestors? Cities today don't have an extra billion hanging around. SO, OWSTERS? SMILE, take the bust and demand a trial.  Bring in your videos if it goes to trial. (Don't worry, it won't) Also ask for a FIJ! And that way you will know your FULLY INFORMED JURY RIGHTS

Explanation by H. Michael Sweeney "Judges have certain leeways established by procedures set forth in their jurisdiction in terms of what they are required to do vs. what they may elect to do. They naturally choose to do the least, and or to do the things which give them a better chance at a conviction because, regardless of the fact of implied impartiality inherent in their post, a Judge with more convictions gets more promotion or re election.

As result, most court systems normally work this way: The Judge instructs the Jury they MUST only consider the evidence and the law as defined by the Judge who both reads it verbatim and does an 'in other words' explanation. The Jury is told they MUST NOT JUDGE THE LAW (e.g., think it fair or not, should not interpret intent or meaning, etc.) and MUST only find the defendant guilty or innocent. He tells them HE will decide the sentence. He may or may not instruct the Jury (jurisdictions vary) that THEY may ask a question of a witness or the Judge (a procedure and approval are involved). But a defendant has the RIGHT in virtually all states to DEMAND (ask with certainty) for a Fully Informed Jury. Prior to the intent, they should also contact the Fully Informed Jury Association folks and they will quickly arrange to swarm over the Court's facilities on the appropriate days of Jury selection and trial handing out flyers explaining the Jurors Rights.

http://www.fija.org. http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm

They do this in case the Judge denies the request, the likelihood is the jurors will receive the flyers and be informed, and once given contradictory instructions as to their 'rights,' it becomes possible to nullify the attempted trail (various means, essentially it becomes a mistrial). Judges get into trouble if that happens, so they tend not to deny the request if they know the FIJA folks are about (and they will).

Under a Fully Informed Jury, it works this way: The Judge instructs the Jury that they may consider the evidence and the law as defined (etc.) The Jury may additionally ask questions (procedures and approval requirements may be altered beneficially in some jurisdictions) and are free to consider circumstances and any other statements by any party called to testify and give them due weight as they will. The Jury MAY JUDGE THE LAW in whatever way they see fit with respect to the case and circumstances.

That means the Jury can find the defendant guilty or innocent, but can also decide them guilty under the law, but not wish them to be punished for it because they don't like the law, because they don't think it should apply under the circumstances, because they think they would have done the same thing, whatever. It is like saying, "We find it was self defense." The Judge cannot pass sentence if the Jury does not want him to do so, and in some jurisdictions the jury may be able to limit or restrict sentence choices. Again, jurisdictions vary on how they might be instructed to 'say' that is their finding (e.g., Guilty without prejudice, Innocent by reasonable cause, etc.), but it gives the Jury power to use their brain and their heart and weight the facts and Judge the law as well as the defendant.

Statistically, the odds of a conviction are manifoldly better without FIJA if there are any mitigating or questionable aspects involved, or issues involving moral choices, emotional or physical duress, etc. In other words, bad guys still go to jail, but good guys caught up in a bad situation have a more fair chance at fairness.

If you face a trial, know that this article should not be construed as legal advice nor should it be accepted and followed blindly. Fully explore your options via FIJA and your lawyer before making any decisions regarding FIJ and other critical tactical decisions about your case. Serious problems require careful consideration of all available choices, ramifications, probabilities of outcome, and so forth. This article is only intended to show you one more option you may or may not be able to so consider. Good luck!

<==BACK TO THE ACTIVIST'S INDEX PAGE