Feds: Jury Nullification Advocacy Not Protected Speech

[osoab]

Feds: Jury Nullification Advocacy Not Protected Speech (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/feds-jury-nullification-advocacy-not-protected-speech/)



Retired chemistry professor Julian Heicklen is facing imprisonment (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/nyregion/brief-details-jury-nullification-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322551239-R0fQMOakLpHsYqpBOByRLg) for advocating jury nullification to passersby, following an indictment by federal prosecutors last year, according to the New York Times. He stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan and handed out brochures on the subject.

According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred…. His speech is not protected by the First Amendment…. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”

Meanwhile, a representative of the New York Civil Liberties Union has shot back: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification. Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”

Prosecutor Rebecca Mermelstein even favors denying Heicklen the jury trial he has requested.

Meanwhile, the terrible and unthinkable legal doctrine of jury nullification — so very dangerous to a free society, say federal prosecutors — was in fact the doctrine held by the Founding Fathers themselves (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_3.pdf). (I am hereby giving away the answer to one of the 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask (http://www.tomwoods.com/books/33-questions-about-american-history-youre-not-supposed-to-ask/).)

(Thanks to George Viaud.)

[Neuro]

This is the final nail in the coffin of free speech! If you cannot tell potential jurors that they have the right to vote against the law. Then you are not free to say anything.

[ximmy]

If god did not want them shorn, he would not have made them sheep...
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/next-05.jpg

[keehah]

No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”
The Feds prosecutors are admission the Fed is corrupted against the people.
__________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict...

Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve the refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law.

Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general, or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.

It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins.

[midnight rambler]

Next up, it will be 'against the law' to advocate using the Declaration of Independence as a template for a course of action.

It's official, we've come full circle.

[palani]

What goes on in courts is not Law. Law fails because there are no contracts. Contracts require substance, something entirely lacking in a FRN. Instead all you have to give are empty promises to pay something as valuable as paper.

In a court of Law there are at last two judges and one of them must be of the quorum (had some law training). As to the jury of your peers (not a trial by jury) ... all you can be presented with is a jury of U.S. citizens, a class that is so low that even the United States government has declared war on them and can kill them with impunity.

[gunDriller]

Jury Nullification is a powerful tool.

although the person had the right to stand outside the courthouse, it was too close for comfort for TPTB.

i wonder how else to get the message of jury nullification to trial juries. i guess in the newspaper and on TV.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/75732.html

interesting article on coverage of Jury Nullification in an episode of some TV show. Kathy Bates educates the public about Jury Nullification - for one show.

"January 18, 2011
'Harry's Law' TV Series Mentions Jury Nullification
Posted by Karen Kwiatkowski on January 18, 2011 09:16 AM

I've loved Kathy Bates since Fried Green Tomatoes and Misery, so I watched the debut of the new TV series "Harry's Law" last night. The themes were pertinent to MLK's themes, of course, but beyond that, she mentioned jury nullification as a possibility for justice in a courtroom, and gave a great speech on the evils of the drug war. The writers made a wry reference to the idea that "it takes a village" while practically showing that it really takes only one person standing up, hearing, understanding, acting on conscience. I don't know where this show will be going philosophically"

[Joe King]

Jury Nullification is a powerful tool.

although the person had the right to stand outside the courthouse, it was too close for comfort for TPTB.

i wonder how else to get the message of jury nullification to trial juries. i guess in the newspaper and on TV.

If this opinion is what they act upon, even those avenues will be prohibited.
According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred…. His speech is not protected by the First Amendment….

If that view of it is what they end up enforcing, www.fija.org (http://www.fija.org/) will become a big target for them.

[palani]

www.fija.org (http://www.fija.org/) will become a big target for them.

Already are. One father in a custody battle had it brought up that he belonged to this organization [indicating that he was therefore unfit].

[BrewTech]

I'm wondering what the point of having a jury of one's peers decide guilt or innocence then. They aren't legal experts (most people only understand or are even aware of a miniscule portion of the "laws" on the books), so what the hell are they supposed to judge a person on other than their moral interpretation of the law?

It's what I will be using if the time comes.

[Joe King]

I'm wondering what the point of having a jury of one's peers decide guilt or innocence then. They aren't legal experts (most people only understand or are even aware of a miniscule portion of the "laws" on the books), so what the hell are they supposed to judge a person on other than their moral interpretation of the law?

It's what I will be using if the time comes.Just don't let it be known in the selection process, or they'll de-select you. What they're lookinn' for are automatons to rubber stamp their BS.

[Dogman]

Just don't let it be known in the selection process, or they'll de-select you. What they're lookinn' for are automatons to rubber stamp their BS. Good way to get out of the duty. And being quiet and you have the time, a way to totally screw up their timetable.

[vacuum]

In order for the system of checks and balances to work, one branch of government behaving in a detrimental way is countered by the other branch of government behaving equally outside of what is considered normal but in the opposite direction.

For example, if the legislature passes completely ridiculous laws, the police can either totally ignore them, or judges can completely ignore them. Laws on the books don't mean anything in those cases. So jurors doing whatever the hell they want for any reason is totally fair and proper, because they are part of that system. You can't "balance" something if you don't weigh more or less than you "should".

[osoab]

Judge Tosses Indictment against Jury Nullification Advocate (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/20/judge-tosses-indictment-against-jury-nullification-advocate/#)



You can probably expect more handouts the next time you walk past a courthouse.
A federal judge has dismissed an indictment of jury tampering against Julian Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who stood outside courthouses in Manhattan and elsewhere and told jurors to vote their conscience, according to (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/nyregion/indictment-against-julian-heicklen-jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html?_r=2) the New York Times. Law Blog detailed (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/02/25/jury-nullifcation-advocate-legal-advocate-or-criminal/) Heicklen’s case back in February 2011.
Prosecutors claimed that advocacy such as Heicklen’s was criminal and without constitutional protection, regardless of where it occurred. Heicklen repeatedly stood with a “jury info” sign and handed out brochures supporting jury nullification, which is a doctrine that says juries can acquit criminals who are technically guilty but who they feel don’t deserve punishment. Heicklen doesn’t support punitive measures for drug or gambling violations, LB noted.

Federal District Judge Kimba Wood said that violation of jury tampering laws only occurs when the defendant tries to influence a juror’s decision with a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror,” NYT reported.

Heicklen didn’t try to communicate with specific jurors; instead, he handed out his materials to passers-by, hoping jurors were among them.
By relying on the plain language of the statute, Wood avoided First Amendment questions, according to Rachel Barkow, a New York University law professor, who also said the judge rejected “the government’s broader reading because it would arguably chill protected speech,” NYT noted.

Prosecutors, who declined to comment on the ruling, said in last month’s oral arguments that Heicklen was “a significant threat” to the integrity of the judicial system, the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-cites-first-amendment-drops-ny-charges-against-jury-nullification-proponent/2012/04/19/gIQAh731TT_story.html).

Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling would allow Heicklen to resume his activities, and pointed to the broader impact the decision will have. “There are people all around the country who do exactly what he was doing, and under this ruling they will no longer face the threat of prosecution,” he said to the NYT.

The ruling is embedded below.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I hope he asks for a jury trial. Then the judge will have to gag him. For all to see.


Hatha

[osoab]

I hope he asks for a jury trial. Then the judge will have to gag him. For all to see.


Hatha

I don't think there will be a trial with the indictment tossed.

Your post got me thinking, maybe that is why they tossed the indictment. They didn't want his trial to be nullified by jury. The jury would have heard every little thing.

[gunDriller]

"as members of the jury, are we at liberty to discuss jury nullification ?"

i will be getting called for jury duty again in July. that's what i was planning to say, right at the beginning.

i expect then the judge will say something like, "if you say another word, i will hold you in contempt".

at which point i will just sit there. anybody got experience in this situation ?

[iOWNme]

I'm wondering what the point of having a jury of one's peers decide guilt or innocence then. They aren't legal experts (most people only understand or are even aware of a miniscule portion of the "laws" on the books), so what the hell are they supposed to judge a person on other than their moral interpretation of the law?

It's what I will be using if the time comes.


From Black's Law 3rd,

2687


2688

How can you judge a man's character, if he is a complete and utter stranger to you? On top of that, the Judge will decide what evidence does and does not get seen by the 'peers'. And finally, in today's world, when you get paid for Jury duty it is not a de jure organic jury, it is a COMMERCIAL Jury. 'Commercial' means a creation by the STATE, and the STATE owns and controls everything it creates.