Jury Nullification

Intro

This post is written with America primarily in mind, as the legal/jury system varies from country to country. What makes Jury nullification relevant to America is guilt in criminal/civil cases being decided by juries made up of a person's peers. There may be bits and pieces that can be taken from this and applied to different systems, but take the time to understand the legal system you live under before doing so.

It's important to first explain what jury nullification is and where it comes. Jury nullification is a byproduct of two key points within the American legal/jury system. These points are that a jury cannot be punished for a decision it makes and that the decision of a jury is final. What these two things create is that a jury can decide to find someone not guilty (despite any amount of evidence) without consequence and the government has no recourse to change said verdict.

Jury nullification does happen quite frequently with American blacks (the most famous example being the OJ Simpson murder case) who choose to not convict other blacks on the basis of race despite clear and overwhelming evidence. That being said, the point of this post is to advocate Jury Nullification in a Nationalist Revolutionary context, not to enable lowlife crime like murdering a spouse or petty burglary; Jury nullification is useful in a revolutionary context in that people can take action against their criminal governments and beat the political repression that follows. Examples of cases where jury nullification should be applied

• A right winger killed several communists in self-defense during a riot
• A nationalist flees an Antifa mob attacking his car and hits one of them
• A local activist crew 'vandalized' state sponsored communist/homosexual "art"
• Right wing activists sued in civil court for holding a rally where violence occurs

Due to the nature of how juries are chosen, Jury nullification requires a decent amount of the population to be radicalized and aware of it. The good news is that in America and much of the Western world has been radicalizing quite quickly as a result of the great replacement and insane amounts of degeneracy. The more of these newly radicalized people that are aware of jury nullification the better chances of it being applied in the real world. By informing those around you (in the real world or digital) who are radicalized about jury nullification, either by sharing this post or sharing the core ideas within this post in your own words/writing makes jury nullification more likely.

While the basic goal of jury nullification is quite simple -- get on a jury and then stay not guilty no matter what, there is nuance and tactics that can be applied for the best possible outcome. The rest of this post is broken up into sections to cover the entire juror process from pretrial selection to deliberation to give some better insights and information on how to best do engage in jury nullification.

Pre-trial

Summons

The first thing that will happen when selected as a potential juror will be you getting a summons in the mail informing you that you've been selected. People are typically selected using DMV records or voter rolls depending on the state they're in, so it's worth looking that up in your jurisdiction to make sure you can be selected to begin with. This initial letter will include the date you're required to be there and what court has summoned you.

American courts are typically broken up into 3 categories. Municipal courts are local low level misdemeanor courts. County courts cover more serious state charges that may range from felonies to misdemeanors. Federal courts cover federal law which typically focuses on higher level offenses only, as such many political cases go federal.

In addition to the court and the date where you need to appear, it's common to receive a questionnaire with your initial summons. With most cases this questionnaire has a common set of basic questions such as 'Have you ever been the victim of a crime' and 'Do you have any close friends or family that are police officers'. These are pretty straightforward questions, you should answer these questions honestly.

In higher profile cases this questionnaire may be a bit more complex and ask some very specific questions that may political in nature. This will be the first time you need to think carefully about your answers. You should not outright lie (as that may be considered perjury) but you should always soften the truth or give vague non-committal answers. What this means is that if you're asked a question about a political ideology, political activity, or highly political subject is that you need to limit how you really feel. Consider what information is out there about you, what you've said publicly, and what you've posted on social media under your own name. Your ultimate goal is to present yourself as unaware of things, the legal system typically likes blank slates as jurors. If for the reasons you listed you cannot present yourself as unaware of something, limit your real opinion to present yourself as moderate and centrist as possible. For example if you're asked about your opinion on black lives matter, instead of "A hodgepodge of disgusting communist and criminal black rioters that need to be rounded up" answer that question "I don't know too much about the organization or anything, I did see some stuff about rioting and I disagree with violence and criminal behavior, but not sure on other stuff"

Regardless of the court that has summoned you or the questionnaire you need to show up, you cannot affect change if you don't do the very basic of showing up. You may not be aware of political cases in your area that you could be getting called for, and at the very worst you may have an opportunity to put a legitimate (non political) criminal in prison. When showing up for court, dress as normal as possible (ie. slacks and a polo) and make sure to cover up any tattoos or visible things that may out you as political.

Voir Dire

The next step in juror process is when you show for jury duty at the court, you'll typically be taken into a courtroom with a Judge and lawyers for them to select their slate of jurors. Both the defense and the prosecution have strikes that they can use if they don't like a juror, they get to probe and decide this based on Voir dire, where questions are asked to the jurors.

The first part of Voir Dire is a group style questioning, where judges or lawyers will ask questions to the entire jury pool and you'll raise your hand based on these questions. The second part which is only done sometimes is individual Voir Dire, this is when your put up in a seat and asked one-on-one questions with sides lawyer. You'll be asked similar questions as the questionnaires mentioned previously but likely more in depth. They'll likely ask a bit about your work, school, and family background as well.

Your approach to answering questions in this part of jury selection should be dependent on the question. If the question is a general question about life and not at all political, a simple accurate answer is the way to go. If the question is about politics, take the previously mentioned approach of vague or non-committal answers that lean toward moderate and centrist positions.

During this questioning process the most important questions will be about your ability to be a good juror. Key questions include some variation of the following

• Can you be a fair and impartial juror ?
• Can you make your decision based on only the evidence presented in court ?
• Can you work well with others in working together to come to a verdict ?

Your answer to these questions must be an unwavering confident YES. Judges will look over a lot of stuff if these answers are confidently answered as yes. Lawyers will make decisions on which jurors to keep and which to strike. Hopefully you make it onto the jury, you'll be given a date and time to return for the trial. Sometimes the trial will begin the same day.

Trial

Once the trial comes it will be broken up into 3 sections. Opening statements, Evidence Presentation, and Closing Arguments. How long this process takes depends on the case. Some cases can be finished in 1-2 days, while others may take weeks depending on the amount of evidence and witnesses.

If it wasn't already apparent during questionnaires and voir dire, it will become obvious quite quickly in opening statements that the case is/isn't political in nature. If the case is political and jury nullification should be used, you need to focus in and internalize the defense's arguments.

You will typically be allowed to take notes throughout the trial, these are useful tool for deliberation time. If there's a key point the prosecution is making, make important note of the counter-point the defense is making to it.

Throughout the case you'll be excused with the rest of the jury for breaks (lunch, bathroom, etc) or when the lawyers need to argue something outside your presence. You may have an urge to discuss the case during these breaks but it's quite important that you don't as it may lead to you being removed from the jury, the jury discussion is only supposed to start once the evidence and arguments have concluded. This doesn't mean you should sit quietly during these breaks, you should socialize during these breaks. Talk about sports, hobbies, or the weather with the ultimate goal of befriending and being on good terms with as many other jurors as possible. The reason for this is that in deliberation, you want to be able to build coalitions with others, and this is a lot easier if you're on good terms with others socially going into deliberation.

It should go without saying, but politics and edgy jokes should not be talked about with other jurors or court staff. It's an easy way to get thrown out and be completely useless. In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, a right wing person had made it into the final selection of the jury pool, he then made a joke to a bailiff about the black rapist that was shot by the police which had set off the rioting. Unsurprisingly, he was removed from jury after the bailiff quickly told the judge. Show some basic self-control and this should be easy.

There isn't too much else to the trial portion that you need to do. Socialize during breaks and know the facts of the case thoroughly so you can effectively advocate during deliberation.

Deliberation

Following closing arguments you'll be sent back into a room with the other jurors to decide the case. You'll typically start with picking a foreperson whose role it is to give information and in some cases read the verdict. It may be useful to be this person, so long as you can get this role without appearing overly desperate to be so. Being a foreperson may sometimes lead you to a position of leading or guiding debates and voting, but this depends on how each group of jurors decides to organize.

From the start you should not reveal your cards, meaning you should not outright say from the start "I will not vote guilty no matter what". You should try to build a coalition of others toward a not guilty verdict. Use the arguments that the defense laid out to try to convince others to a not guilty verdict.

You'll typically debate facts of the case and try to come to some verdict through voting. If you find yourself stuck on arguments about facts with other jurors switch the focus to more subjective things like the burden of proof in a criminal case. The standard of proof in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. For example if the prosecution has reliable piece of evidence, don't dispute the evidence itself instead challenge if the evidence is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred.

If you're lucky you'll have built a coalition and can push them towards the most ideal outcome, which is a not guilty verdict. If you reach this verdict, the defendant is free and cannot be re-tried for the offense again which is commonly referred to as double jeopardy. If you're less lucky for reasons such as the jury makeup or the facts of the case, then you should aim for a hung jury with as many people as possible. A hung jury that is 6 to 6 (guilty vs not guilty) may not be re-tried whereas a 11-1 in favor of guilty will likely be re-tried. An example of this comes out of the Southwest where a White rancher killed in illegal alien, in his murder trial the jury was hung in favor of not guilty, following this result the state decided that the case won't be re-tried

If a jury cannot reach a verdict, a judge will typically let the deliberation go on for some time, ranging from several days to a couple weeks. This process of coming in to court and holding firm on your position each day may be tiring, but understand this sacrifice is worth the freedom of our people and resistance to our criminal governments. If the jury has deliberated for some time without a result, a judge may give what's called an Allen charge, this is a strongly worded request from the judge for the jury to reach an outcome. While this may be scary understand that this is only a request and can and should be promptly ignored.

Lesser Included

You may be in a situation where the evidence is quite overwhelming against the defendant, leading to you be outnumbered in voting. In these cases you can certainly still force an 11-1 hung jury, however hung jury verdicts that are 11-1 can and likely will be re-tried. In this case it may be useful to push towards lesser included charges. While not always possible, in serious felony cases the jury instructions may include the option to convict on less severe charges than the main ones being argued by the prosecution.

For example someone may be charged with 1st degree murder, but you can consider lesser charges like 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter. If the evidence is overwhelming and you strongly think another jury that does not include you will find them guilty on the most severe charge, pushing towards lesser included charges may help reduce imprisonment or other punishment.

If you decide on this approach, make it clear to the other jurors that you're a 100% no on the most severe charge but are willing to consider the others. Push hard and try to get the lowest one possible. Doing so won't allow the defendant to walk off without imprisonment, but will greatly reduce the punishment they're stuck with. For example 1st degree murder might be 30+ years, life, or the death penalty whereas manslaughter can be anywhere from 5-30 years.

Conclusion

Jury nullification fundamentally is pretty simple, get on a jury and vote no while convincing others to do the same, but it can throw a massive wrench into the legal system that is used to attack Nationalists and revolutionaries in America and across much of the Western world.

It is this anonymous writer's hope that you learn and spread the ideas in this post to others with a similar ideological roots. Spreading this post itself and the ideas contained make the chance of being able to apply to these to protect our people more possible.