In Defense of Jury Nullificationby
Vin Suprynowicz
Out of Green Bay, The Associated Press reported Tuesday, "A woman who was upset over being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts." A federal jury heard the case against retired teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton, Wisc. in September 2004. Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1. On July 25, The AP reported, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a checkpoint. Gostisha said she took the woman to another screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following protocol when she then further performed a "limited pat-down search." Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her. Dintenfass responded that she acted in self-defense. "I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body," she said. Now, how much do you suppose we would be safe in wagering that said judge in this case lied to those jurors, telling them they had no right or power to throw out the case if they felt the law or its enforcement was absurd and unconstitutional – and that the judge further refused to seat any juror who declined to perjure himself of his verdict in advance by swearing to "enforce the law as given to you by the court"? Before the apologists for consolidated state tyranny limber up their keyboards, let us review: 1) The most vital precedent in establishing trial by jury as a vital safeguard against state usurpation was the Bushell case, which found William Penn (yes that William Penn) on trial in London in 1670 for preaching an illegal Quaker sermon. The judges ordered the jury to convict, but refused to let them read the actual statute. The jury refused to convict, since they couldn't figure out why this should be a crime in the first place. The jurors themselves were fined and imprisoned without food, water, or bathroom facilities until they would relent. Four refused, brave souls. And the English Court of Common Pleas finally came to their rescue, ruling that a jury could refuse to enforce a law if it offended their conscience or if they weren't allowed to read it for themselves, and that no one could punish them for doing so. 2) Our own American freedom of the press is widely traced to the trial of colonial printer John Peter Zenger in New York in 1735. Zenger was accused of printing seditious libel against the king. He admitted to having done the printing, and truth was no defense under crown law. But defense attorney Andrew Hamilton cited the Bushell case, asking the jury to ignore the judge's instructions and throw out a prosecution under an offensive law. The jury "judged the law" and acquitted, ignoring the judge's instructions. 3) John Jay, first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, said in charging the jury in Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794, "You (the jurors) have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." 4) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase agreed, stating in 1804, "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." 5) What's that? All this magically changed at some point in the 20th century, when this safeguard of our other liberties quietly expired? Actually, the D.C. Court of Appeals held in U.S. v. Dougherty in 1972: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions from the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of John Peter Zenger of seditious libel [the case that gave Americans our freedom of the press] and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under fugitive slave laws." Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a liar, and should be promptly searched for a concealed law degree. At the conclusion of the kangaroo trial of uppity groping victim Phyllis Dintenfass, U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault. In fact, these traitorous scum, who daily violate their sacred oaths to protect and defend our Constitution, do not perform a vital service, or even a marginally useful one, unless it's a "vital service" to condition an entire people to abandon our rights to privacy, dignity and to be free of unreasonable, warrantless searches. Most of this rigmarole was already in place on Sept. 11, 2001, and it stopped not a single intended hijacker – not a one. It would not stop them today, since metal detectors do not pick up plastic box cutters. The American populace is being conditioned with incredible speed to accept the conditions of a de facto police state with no regard to our privacy or dignity, let alone the solemn guarantees of the Fourth Amendment. About the only criticism of sexual assault victim Dintenfass' actions that I can summon up is that it lacked a certain panache. Next time, dear, try moaning loudly, then breaking into uncontrollable sobs and panting, "Oh yes, baby. This is even better than at home with the baby powder. The whips! The whips!"
Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow. Copyright © 2005 Vin Suprynowicz |
