CONFERENCE FOCUSES ON JURY RIGHTS

BEDFORD -- Should an environmental activist who chains himself to an
endangered redwood be allowed to argue in court that what he did was morally
right?

Should Jack Kevorkian be able to tell a jury that the decision to euthanize
a patient is between himself and the patient?

Should a motorcyclist not be held criminally liable for refusing to wear a
helmet because "it's his head?"

Larry Dodge, co-founder of the Helmville, Mont.-based Fully Informed Jury
Association, would answer yes to all three questions.

Dodge's group concluded its weekend national conference yesterday at the
Holiday Inn D/ FW West in Bedford to discuss the jury rights.

The lion's share of the conference focused on jury nullification, which is
the idea that jurors have a right to decide against a law if they have a
moral objection to it, a concept opposed by some prosecutors and judges.

"The jury is the ultimate check and balance on the government," said Dodge,
a publisher and free-lance photographer who divides his time between
Helmville and Dallas. "The jury should be able to judge the law and its
application and not just the evidence.

"The fact is they can do it, but they need to be educated that they can," he
said.

The conference included seminars titled Defending the Undefendable, Jury
Persuasion and Empowerment and Putting the Government on Trial.

"At this seminar, you will learn ways to inform and persuade jurors that
they do not have to convict if doing so would violate their sense of right
and wrong, without the gavel coming down and the specter of contempt rearing
its head," the literature states.

It promised to teach "how to get a jury acquittal, or at least a hung jury,
when your client may be factually guilty, but poses no threat to society."

Examples of jury nullification, group leaders said, include the trial of
O.J. Simpson, when defense attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. asked jurors to
"send a message," and a Yale Law Review article that urged black jurors to
acquit black defendants of nonviolent crimes as a way to "protect their
communities."

The group's Texas chapter is concentrating on finding state lawmakers who
will take several bills to the Legislature.

Members want to change the law to disallow prosecutors from excusing
potential jurors because they may disagree with a portion of the law
relevant to a case, said Tom Glass, a systems analyst from Houston who heads
the Lone Star chapter. They also want to give juries the authority to levy a
less-than-mandated sentence.

"Today in the courts, judges are telling juries you have to follow the
government, no matter what your conscience tells you," Glass said. "That is
fundamentally un-American."

The Fully Informed Jury Association may be one of the few organizations that
includes members who support marijuana legalization and environmental
protection along with gun rights, members say.

"Instead of liberal or conservative, it is the establishment vs. the little
guy," Glass said.

"One of the beautiful things about the group is the diversity of people," he
said.

The group has been criticized, particularly by prosecutors, Glass said.

"They say, `You don't believe in the law. You're anarchists,' " he said.
Iowa District Court Judge William R. Eads wrote in a newspaper article that
jury nullification is "just plain dumb."

"For a jury to be allowed to disregard the laws that apply to a particular
case would, in effect, amount to an unelected 12-person legislature deciding
a case without regard to the law," Eads wrote.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst