• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrest Karen Mallard

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I've first hand experience of seeing and hearing a CA and a judge both REFUSING to allow a defense attorney to include jury nullification in the instructions to a jury

I'm very glad to live in NH, where it's not just allowed, it's required to allow a nullification argument.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Politely cited: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/liii/519/519-23-a.htm

"In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."

"A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification
Within my understanding, a person can be guilty as sin under the law (fact), but I will NOT vote to convict.

Your site is good for general information - I have supported that - but doesn't cite New Hampshire law which I was requesting.

Think that this does a better job of delivering:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...4-new-hampshire-passes-jury-nullification-law
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Grape, I think that one was overturned by the NH State Supreme Court in 2012. It appears they tried to pass another version in 2017.. their House passed it.. but the NH State Senate did not.
More info at this link:
http://gaveltogavel.us/2017/05/05/n...se-jury-nullification-house-approved-170-160/
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...aren-Mallard&p=2230033&viewfull=1#post2230033
I gave you the NH supreme court case above explaining what they decided/did. Read the case, it's pretty clear.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
So, why did you waist your time posting a response to Grapeshot?

Wasn't a waste of time... it was a message posted specifically TO Grapeshot. Thus the direct reply to his post, and my quoting what he had posted, and my intro to him directly (Grape,.... ). Sorry to confuse you. Next time I'll just send it via PM.

Thanks
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
We stand to gain from this

Either she is properly prosecuted for violating a stupid and unconstitutional law which can then be forever nullified or she goes to jail as any of us would. I can live with either outcome and so should she. There is compelling evidence that she committed a felony based on the existing (I do agree unconstitutional) law. Until such time as she is acquitted, she is at the very least "Alleged Felon Karen Mallard". If the law is thrown out, we have significant gain. If she spends herself into penury for her public stupidity, I find gain there as well. Let her spend her money to defend our rights; I can embrace the irony and enjoy it.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
While most people here would likely agree with you, what if it were you that did exactly what she did? What do you think would happen to you in the current climate in the jurisdiction she made the short barrel rifle in? She should face exactly the same.

Really, that is lame, "what if,".
It couldn't as I don't use FB to post my business for others to poke their nose into.
We all know why they aren't going after her, same reason Bill, Hitlary and their staff aren't behind bars.

Point being, we should use the laws they want to use against us, against them
No where did I state she shouldn't be charged. I stated I wouldn't vote guilty.
Maybe her stunt will land her in court defending her actions, matters not to me.
As I have nothing to loss, but RKBA might gain from it.

If she is charged let her spend her money and maybe it'll advance RKBA issues.



Maybe so, but I've first hand experience of seeing and hearing a CA and a judge both REFUSING to allow a defense attorney to include jury nullification in the instructions to a jury

I have too.
And, wouldn't you have preferred one of those citizen to be a free thinker and decide for themselves if the law itself is legal or not. No judge, lawyer, fellow juror can make me vote either way. I make my own choice.

I totally get it, this lady is a fool. A freedom hating fool too boot, AND MANY WOULD LOVE TO SEE HER GET WHAT SHE DESERVES.

However, that doesn't change my view on RKBA issues.

All laws that infringe on ones rights to own, sell, buy, change, alter, carry etc... firearms are illegal, regardless if the person supports RKBA or not, imho.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Politely cited: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/liii/519/519-23-a.htm

"In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."

Your site is good for general information - I have supported that - but doesn't cite New Hampshire law which I was requesting.

Umm... I gave you a link to the actual New Hampshire statute, which you were requesting.

You replied with a news article?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Politely cited: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/liii/519/519-23-a.htm

"In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."

Umm... I gave you a link to the actual New Hampshire statute, which you were requesting.

You replied with a news article?
Do not think that the referenced statute is in effect. See post #46 in this thread.

Is there evidence to the contrary?
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
And lets not forget the NH Supreme Court case posted at #43 which trumps any news article.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...aren-Mallard&p=2230033&viewfull=1#post2230033

Do not think that the referenced statute is in effect. See post #46 in this thread.

Is there evidence to the contrary?

The links have nothing to do with the law I cited, which is still very much in effect.

The article and the case were about requiring a judge to include specific language in jury instructions. The law I cited requires the court to allow an argument of nullification by the defense.

Apples and oranges.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Do not think that the referenced statute is in effect. See post #46 in this thread.
Is there evidence to the contrary?
Maybe a little bit, direct from the New Hampshire Supreme Court -
In 2012, the New Hampshire legislature enacted RSA 519:23-a, which took effect on January 1, 2013. It states: “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”RSA 519:23-a (Supp. 2013)(emphasis added). In the session law enacting this statute, the legislature included the following preamble:

Findings and Intent of the General Court. Under the decisions of both the New Hampshire supreme court and the United States Supreme Court, the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The jury system functions at its best when it is fully informed of the jury’s prerogatives. The general court wishes to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence, while preserving the rights of a criminal defendant, as enumerated in part 1,articles 15 and 20, New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

Taking the above along with the footnote to RSA412:23 which states "Source. 2012, 243:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2013." I think it's same to assume the Act was passed in 2012, took effect in January of 2013 and has not been rescinded in the 5 years since.

Is there evidence to the contrary?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Manufacturing an unregistered SBR is a felony, regardless of intent.

Not exactly true - it's a general intent offense, not a specific intent offense. The intent required is the commission of the prohibited act, not the intent to break the law. In other words, it was the intent to manufacture a prohibited firearm that constitutes the "mens rea" in such a case. She intended to, and did, create a short-barreled rifle in contravention of federal law. And created her own evidence to prove that she's guilty.

The only defense to such a charge would be accident, act of God, intervening cause (by a third party over whom the defendant had no control), insanity, etc.

So, what's to "investigate"?
 
Last edited:
Top