They don’t want you to know the real power you hold as a juror.

When you receive a jury summons, whether it’s for federal or state court, the basic rules are similar. You may be selected for either a grand jury or a petit jury.

A grand jury typically consists of at least 23 members and some alternates. Unlike a trial jury, they hear multiple cases but don’t determine guilt or innocence. Their role is to decide if there’s enough evidence (probable cause) to require a defendant to stand trial. Grand jury proceedings are always held in secrecy.

A prosecutor leads the grand jury, guiding them through the process and ultimately telling the jury what they want in terms of an indictment. The foreman of the jury signs the indictment if the jury agrees.  The grand jury need not be unanimous in returning their verdicts.  

You’ll never see a defense attorney in a grand jury room because they’re not allowed. Defendants are usually invited to testify, though defense lawyers nearly always advise against it. On rare occasions, a defendant may choose to testify, but this often harms their case.

The prosecutor explains which criminal laws apply and presents a narrative for why they seek an indictment. They usually call witnesses, often police officers, to testify about what happened. Unlike in a trial, hearsay is allowed, and there’s no defense attorney to object to leading questions from the prosecutor.

Soon, the prosecutor asks the grand jury to vote on whether to issue an indictment (a “true bill”). If they decide there’s not enough evidence, they return a “no bill.”

Here’s what the grand jury isn’t told: they have immense power. They can demand that real witnesses or evidence items be brought in and questioned directly. Prosecutors hate when this happens because it disrupts their control over the process.

Prosecutors prefer jurors who are compliant. But remember, when you’re on a grand jury, it’s your power, not the prosecutor’s. Don’t be afraid to use it.

Now let’s talk about the petit or trial jury, the one most people are familiar with from movies or news. After both sides present their case and make closing arguments, the jury is given instructions. Then comes the deliberation.

Here’s where your true power as a juror comes into play: jury nullification. This means you can decide that the law being applied is unjust or unreasonable. You don’t have to follow the instructions exactly, and no one can punish you for this decision.

Jurors are often told not to consider the potential penalties of their verdict. When they speculate, they’re usually wrong. I believe juries should be informed about the consequences, but they never are. In some cases, juries are given options, like choosing between a murder or manslaughter conviction. These compromises can lead to verdicts that don’t always reflect justice, though they’re sometimes appropriate only if the defendant is truly guilty of a lesser offense.

As a juror, your verdict is yours alone. Don’t let others pressure you into changing your mind. If the jury can’t agree unanimously, a mistrial is declared, and the prosecutor can choose to retry the case or offer a more attractive plea deal to the accused. 

After a guilty verdict, there’s still a brief window for jurors that voted Guilty to change their minds. The defense lawyer will often ask for the jury to be polled, and I’ve seen two cases where a juror has said “no” when asked if it was truly their verdict. In such cases, a mistrial is required.

That’s the reality of jury duty. Don’t be afraid to exercise your power—it’s an essential part of the justice system.

Jury Duty, Reasonable Doubt and Judicial Tyranny

Most Americans believe they understand Reasonable Doubt when it comes to Jury Duty. I will begin challenging that notion by simply asking you to define it.

Let me say that lawyers and judges can’t really define it and rely on the writings of others to explain the concept.

Let me also begin by saying in a criminal case, pertinent facts like the backgrounds or history of deception of government witnesses is often hidden from a jury. This is especially true where special Victim’s Rights laws were enacted at the behest of over-zealous prosecutors.

Too many judges, rule in prejudicial evidence or rule out exculpatory evidence with ease. Juries too often never get to learn about important facts. Any judge can simply put their thumb on the scale of justice with certain rulings. They get away with this because it’s considered judicial discretion. The vast majority of those rulings are made away from the inquiring minds of the jury.

Far too often this is Judicial Tyranny. Judges are supposed to be impartial basing their rulings on the law. Instead they are swayed by allegiances to political opinion, personal gain or pleasing those who have appointed them. Judges are no less human than anyone else.

So you’re on jury duty, what do you do now? You don’t want to be soft on crime and in your heart you want to be fair. But are you really? Will you actually acquit the defendants on Reasonable Doubt?

In Nazi Germany they had public trials, actually they were filmed show trials you’d see when you went to your local movie theater along with whatever film you came to see. It was very much like Court TV.

They did not have juries but instead used a three-judge panel. They were learned and respected lawyers that everyone assumed would be fair.

Every defendant had a lawyer at his side. Witnesses were brought who gave testimony and it all seemed on the square. The problem was the public was fooled and the courts became prolific murderers.

Our founding fathers dealt with this wisely and gave us a system of justice and our Bill of Rights. However the last four decades has sent us down the slippery slope to a police state and Judicial Tyranny. Just as in Nazi Germany 1933-45 the general population is failing to notice the rapid changes.

Thankfully we still have juries but they are so poorly informed. First of all Reasonable Doubt is the standard. That means conviction based on theory, mere probabilities and your gut feelings are out. Jurors take an oath but those deep-seated feelings push that oath aside.

The O.J. Simpson murder trial verdict stands out in millions of minds as a horrible mistake. Was it really? One cop, Mark Fuhrman pled guilty to perjury at this trial and evidence handling was as sloppy as it can get. Most importantly nobody could place Simpson at the crime scene or witnessed the killing.

Reasonable Doubt and a lack of evidence should be celebrated and every verdict should error on the side of acquittal, not conviction.

This is not about being soft on crime but being hard on the government and their agents that brought the case to you.

Yes, you may let some guilty bum go but that’s better than destroying an innocent’s life.

If you cannot protect the rights and liberty of some stranger who the Hell will protect yours or someone you love’s when they are falsely accused of a crime.

Let me ask you all to begin celebrating the Reasonable Doubt whenever it exists. You must also remember, if you think any law is unfair or wrong you have the right to vote Not Guilty.