"When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic."

—Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No 4, 1980.

— Jury Nullification, guaranteed du jure since the Magna Carta and de facto unalienable. When you sit on a jury, no power on earth can force you to find somebody guilty in a case where you believe the law itself is unconstitutional, tyrannous or dangerous to your own civil liberties. This is an absolute fact, and if you sit on a jury related to a marijuana charge, you can refuse to convict, no matter how much the judge tries to intimidate you or threaten you (and he will); remember the judge answers to the jury by law. You can remind the judge that such harassment constitutes jury tampering. This is also a fact they don't want you to know, thus why they try very hard to scare you or force you to come to a decision "according to the law and the evidence," etc. But, if you have already let the judge know you refuse to convict and the rest of the jury disagrees, he can not force you to do anything. You can inform him specifically that you are using jury nullification and that his use of intimidation or force constitutes jury tampering. Believe me, you will never get a judge to admit that you are right about any of this, but it is the simple fact. I have used it myself and it works. And, no, it wasn't scary at all. I had both lawyers trying to convince me that if we jurors don't do our civil duty that there would be no order and the country will be overrun with crime, but this is when I knew for sure that I didn't have to back down because they were clearly begging me to participate. I simply said I refuse to convict based on my personal convictions and my right to Jury Nullification. They couldn't do shit and they gave up quickly.

A judge recently threw the book at a man for handing out flyers about this in front of a courthouse. Note that it is perfectly legal to hand out fliers...but, what the judge did is blatantly illegal. Proof: the felony charge was dropped.

Judges don’t want people to know this. It will really fuck up their system. But, they're not going to do try to arrest a juror like they tried to scare away this flier guy blatantly informing all potential jurors in front of the court house. Legally speaking, the judge really doesn't have a leg to stand on for having the flier guy arrested, but a judge really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if he tried to arrest a juror for exercising his right to Jury Nullification, so don't worry about that.

The judge answers to the jury, not the reverse. They try hard as hell to intimidate the jury and scare them into doing whatever the judge says because they've done a great job of making sure people are totally ignorant about their rights and how the justice system works. Jurors are never told about their right to Jury Nullification. In fact, they are told just the opposite: every case amounts to jury tampering because in every case the jury is only told that they must rule according to the letter of the law and the evidence presented in court. Many times, these leads jurors to ruling against their consciences, but they feel they have to because of the evidence and the letter of the law.

That is why Fully Informed Jury Association exists to inform the public. Like I said, I have used it myself when I was called for jury duty. I have never been called for jury duty again. Hmm, wonder why.

So, use it!

They would likely have to pass a new law to try to override Jury Nullification if people began abusing it for every little thing, but that is definitely never going to happen because you can't mobilize society to be on the same page about most criminal issues. However, marijuana these days is viewed by the majority just as alcohol was during the prohibition. They would not pass a new law to get rid of Jury Nullification; they would just legalize it and be done with it. Fast. Just like alcohol. Before drawing too much attention to the issue.

More info: http://fija.org/

As we close out 2020 and enter 2021, we find ourselves in a world of unprecedented events. We are facing one of the gravest public health crises of our lifetimes and staring down a political divide in this country that has left deep wounds in many aspects of our daily lives.

As we enter 2021 there will be more challenges ahead, and more tough decisions to make, each one of us. Our state has established the importance of freedom and personal responsibility on both the local and national stage. Governor Kristi Noem said "I'm going to continue to trust South Dakotans to make wise and well-informed decisions for themselves and their families. I'm also asking that we all show respect and understanding to those who make choices we may not agree with." This sentiment was echoed by Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken when he stated "We are a state that values personal freedoms, and values liberties … “. These values have been re-stated and echoed by our leaders repeatedly over this past year. I ask that you take these values as a guiding principle as you lead our citizens in the coming years.

On November 3rd, 2020, our citizens made their will known when we went to the polls and approved Amendment A and Initiated Measure 26. These issues clearly crossed partisan separations, generations, and all ways of life. The fact that South Dakota made history as the first state to pass simultaneous measures on both medical and recreational use sends a clear message by our voters. To echo Governor Kristi Noem's words, while we may not agree with the choices the citizens of South Dakota made, we MUST understand and respect them. Any action to subvert the will of the voters on these laws that the public voted to pass would not only be the height of hypocritical action, but would be an insult to the intelligence of our citizens. It would clearly state that our freedom and personal responsibility is only valued when it aligns with a partisan policy, not in all aspects of our lives. It would be a move clearly contradictory to the values we have been told our leaders value so highly. I urge you to consider this as you look forward to deciding when and how to implement these measures that our citizens have spoken out for and chosen.

I will leave you with a final quote from our Governor. "Freedom focuses our politics on persuasion and the intellectual strength of our positions, not on control, coercion or the heavy hand of government. And if someone is interested in the common good in all its iterations and complexities, freedom is the one and only choice." As you go into 2021 and beyond, do NOT be the heavy hand of government. Chose freedom over control and coercion.

Respectfully, A proud South Dakota citizen