Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'

from the jury-nullification dept

Wed, Mar 2nd 2011 8:19am — Mike Masnick

Paul Alan Levy was the first of a few folks to send over the news that a guy named Julian Heicklen, a retired Penn State chemistry professor, has been indicted for charges of jury tampering for handing out pamphlets about jury nullification in front of courts. Just a month ago, we had a related (but different) story about a judge in Florida banning handing out such pamphlets, which raised a number of very serious First Amendment questions. In this case, it went beyond just a ban, as the guy was actually indicted by the court, leading to more serious First Amendment questions.

It should be admitted that the guy appears to be... a bit of a crackpot in how he's responded to attempts to stop him from handing out these pamphlets, including collapsing to the ground and having to be taken to a hospital (and later suing the hospitals). He also apparently refused to issue any plea in this latest case, and at one point simply sat there silently looking down, leading the judge to ask if he was asleep (he was not).

That said, there are serious First Amendment issues raised by this. Jury tampering laws are designed to protect against someone tampering with specific juries, trying to influence the direct outcome. But that's not at all what was happening in either of these two stories. In both cases, it just involved people handing out pamphlets to the general population outside a courtroom, explaining the concepts of jury nullification. That should not be seen as tampering at all. I mean, it's just as easy for someone to sit at home and read about jury nullification online. Why should it be illegal to tell people about it in front of a courthouse?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, julian heicklen, jury nullification, jury tampering

130 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:26am

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Hopefully this guy's jury is aware of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt Jones (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  Will the guy's attorney be allowed to discuss jury nullification in the courthouse as part of the defense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Will the guy's attorney be allowed to discuss jury nullification in the courthouse as part of the defense?"
    
    I think every judge in that court just shit themselves....
    
    Welcome to the legal version of the Streisand Effect, where you arrest somebody for talking about something that will then be discussed thoroughly in his trial in the place you didn't want him talking about it, potentially resulting in that very something being utilized in his own trial.
    
    And now I've gone crosseyed....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes!
      
      MORE people need to be indicted on this charge. The more the merrier in my book.
      
      That's why I am *so* loving this. That guy has Tiger Blood coursing through his veins! Adonis DNA! He may be a whackjob, but he's *our* whackjob.
      
      CBMHB
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Will the guy's attorney be allowed to discuss jury nullification in the courthouse as part of the defense?
    
    There's not a chance in hell of that being allowed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JackSombra (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't see how judge could stop it without causing a guaranteed mistrial
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Evidence
      > There's not a chance in hell of that being allowed.
      
      Not sure how he can stop it without violating the rules of evidence. The pamphlet itself is evidence of the crime, and the defendant has the right to introduce it and have the jury examine it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - H1, 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure! Just enter his Pamphlet into evidence so the jury can read it LOL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  It would be very apropos if the guy in court for jury nullification were acquitted through jury nullification. It would be difficult to avoid informing a jury of the concept if it's the subject of the case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't see how they are going to prosecute him.
    
    * If they don't show the jury his pamphlet as evidence, they don't have a case against him.
    * If they do, by their own argument, they are tampering with the jury.
    
    Tough break for the prosecutors, but you know what John Wayne said: "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Tough break for the prosecutors, but you know what John Wayne said: "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.""
      
      Yeah, but you know what the Duke also said: "Hey, Rock Hudson, why don't you come over here and sit on my face?"
      
      So, you know, there's that to consider....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Big Mook, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow! Just, wow! DH, I've been a fan for quite a while, but when you blaspheme the Duke, you're dead to me...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Wow! Just, wow! DH, I've been a fan for quite a while, but when you blaspheme the Duke, you're dead to me..."
        
        Aw, c'mon. Why are John Wayne fans so closed off to the possibility that he MIGHT have been gay? The dude was still a kickass actor, political activist, and all around badass. So what if he might have enjoyed twisting Rock Hudson's niblets every now and again?
        
        Mook, I hope you were joking, but if not, it is quite telling that you consider suggesting someone was gay is "blaspheming" him....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Big Mook, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I was just joking; turn up your sarcasm detector a little. I don't care either way when it comes to the Duke or most anyone else for that matter.
        
        This line of thought brings to mind John Travolta. I mean, the knowledge that he's bi/gay or whatever just renders anything he is in unwatchable for me, because he clings to a "religion" (money-grubbing sci-fi cult) that claims homosexuality is a disease to be cured, all the while getting all the oral and anal action he can in the bath house circuit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yeah, I was just joking; turn up your sarcasm detector a little."
        
        Sorry 'bout that. Damn things been on the fritz since I read a bunch of Charlie Sheen quotes....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mook, I hope you were joking, but if not, it is quite telling that you consider suggesting someone was gay is "blaspheming" him...."
        
        Shouldnt be. Gay is the shit.
        
        Oh wait, that didnt come out quite right....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Shouldnt be. Gay is the shit."
        
        That is so beautiful....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Berenerd (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it normally doesn't...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MikeLinPA (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Gay?
        Saying a big rugged bad-ass lady's man like John Wayne is gay is like saying a big rugged bad-ass lady's man like Rock Hudson is gay! ...er... uh... wait a minute...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan Givens, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, the judge is not allowing a jury trial in this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    In a criminal case? Do you have a link to a source for that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      From the original New York Times article:
      "In court on Friday, Judge Wood cited a written request by Mr. Heicklen that Muslims be �excluded from the jury� because he was Jewish and �Islam preaches death to Jews.� Because he was charged with a misdemeanor, she said, he was not entitled to a jury trial; and in any case, she said, jurors may not be excluded because of religion.
      
      So the level of charge they arrested him on automatically "pre-nullified" the jury that could have kicked this out of the courtroom. Sad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Interesting. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is my understanding that the right to a jury trial doesn�t attach if the offense is not a �serious offense� but I find it strange that jury tampering isn�t serious. I would if that issue will be raised
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    I assume you are joking...the right to a jury trial in a criminal case like this is pretty clear (unless waived)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Irwin Cory, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:23pm
    
    Re: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
    Isn't it unconstitutional to deny a person accused of a felony (I assume this is a felony) a trial by a jury of his peers?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:33am

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." - Thomas Jefferson (via the Internet)

See, that's the problem right there. They don't want to be held to the principles of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eejit (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:39am

OH look, another abuse of Human Rights by the Judges of Mega-City One America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  GOD DAMN IT, There was supposed to be some snark in there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  OH look, another abuse of Human Rights by the Judges of Mega-City One America
  Extra geek points for Judge Dredd reference and making a good point at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:05am

Slightly off topic
The original article is behind a paywall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Slightly off topic
  Search for the URL minus the referrer on Google, then go in through there (if you care enough to bother).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rhiadon (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:05am

Crackpot comment
I'm somewhat familiar with Julian's activities because of certain political leanings I have. That's as much disclosure as I feel I need to reveal at this time...

Now, calling him a crackpot is a bit unfair in my opinion. He's participating in civil disobedience. The police come to arrest him, he does not aid them in his capture but neither does he actively resist. Of course not actively assisting is construed as resisting but that's another issue. Anyway, calling him a crackpot it seems rational to call Gandhi a crackpot as well.

Maybe I'm being nit-picky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Crackpot comment
  Ghandi was a crackpot. It's just that he was successful in his endeavors, and thus when he's referred to in the present the connotation is "a great man" rather than "batshit nuts".
  
  It's all a matter of perspective.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Crackpot comment
  He's a crackpot not because of his political activities, but rather because of his reactions, which appear to be wild, unwarranted, and somewhat childish. He doesn't help his situation in the slightest by all these antics. Falling to the ground, suing the hospital, and acting like he is falling asleep in court are not civil disobedience, they are the acts that would get most people labeled as nutjobs or "doesn't know when to quit".
  
  Jury nullification has been discussed here before. I think it is a tool to try to bypass the congress, the president, and the rule of law, allowing jurists to not only rule on a case as a jury, but also to try to legislate from the deliberation room. In that manner, I think it isn't so much jury nullification as much as "democracy nullification".
  
  I am suspecting that if this becomes a real issue, there will be a move to limit the numbers of jury trials, and juries may be sequestered more often, to avoid them being exposed to what is a poisoning force in the court system.
  
  Can you imagine jury nullification on traffic tickets?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    "In that manner, I think it isn't so much jury nullification as much as "democracy nullification"."
    
    Because legislators always have our best interests in mind when they auction their votes to corporations.
    
    "I am suspecting that if this becomes a real issue, there will be a move to limit the numbers of jury trials"
    
    My GOD! Are you saying that if jurors are informed of their rights, the sixth amendment will be trampled?
    
    "Can you imagine jury nullification on traffic tickets?"
    
    This is utterly retarded. Nobody wants to live in a state of lawlessness. To suggest that people would go around letting people off for various infractions all willy-nilly simply because they're aware that they can reveals you to have very little faith in a jury to begin with. It is the last line of protection against the tyranny of the state. You fail at civics and American politics, and if you're an American citizen you should renounce your citizenship immediately and jump into a ravine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      "Because legislators always have our best interests in mind when they auction their votes to corporations"
      
      No one said democracy is perfect, but it's still democracy. Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up the law on a case by case basis is not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        "No one said democracy is perfect, but it's still democracy. Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up the law on a case by case basis is not."
        
        We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic and jury nullification is an important line of defense against a tyrannical state or unjust laws. From wikipedia: "Jury nullification was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850." Returning slaves to slavery was the law by which judges were bound. "Random jurors making up the law" were able to ignore it. The people who wrote the constitution wrote it to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" that can come with a true "democracy." They were supportive of the concept of jury nullification. Juries are not bound to convict people on unjust laws. How you construe that as a bad thing is utterly mind-blowing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        I am so glad someone finally pointed out that we don�t live in a democracy, though it might be nice if we did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Whenever I see someone rambling about how America is a democracy I can't help but picture someone who hasn't politically evolved beyond fourth grade social studies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Ok, we are a blend of democracy (e.g., statewide initiatives) and a republic (elected legislators). Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up the law on a case by case basis is not consistent with either system.
        
        Jury nullification can be good (e.g., fugitive slave act) or bad (e.g., acquitting whites accused of killing blacks in the South) in any particular case; that doesn't make it consistent with our system of law and government.
        
        As for "the people who wrote the Constitution," "they" were not uniformly for or against jury nullification.
        
        "Juries are not bound to convict people on unjust laws. How you construe that as a bad thing is utterly mind-blowing."
        
        First, jurors swear that they will apply the law as instructed. So, to the extent someone is "bound" by their oath, they are bound to do so.
        
        Second, why is it so "mind-blowing" that I don't think a super-minority of 1 person (because a criminal conviction requires a unanimous verdict in most cases) should get to determine what is "just" in contravention of elected representatives? THAT is tyranny!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        'First, jurors swear that they will apply the law as instructed. So, to the extent someone is "bound" by their oath, they are bound to do so.'
        
        This is unenforceable, as jury nullification is an accepted part of our legal system. Just because judges and lawyers wish it weren't doesn't mean they can twist things around as they please, either.
        
        If we were all sworn to 'apply the law as instructed,' there would be no point in a jury, as we could be instructed to apply the law as the judge sees fit. That isn't the judge's job OR prerogative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up the law on a case by case basis is not.
        It sounds like the very definition of democracy to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up the law on a case by case basis is not.
        Is it any worse than 435(?) people selected largely on the basis of who has the most money, best ties to rich industries and looks best on TV doing so?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        > Letting 12 randomly selected jurors make up
        > the law on a case by case basis is not.
        
        I'd rather have that than 535 congressmen making up the law based on which Fortune 500 company gave them the most money and whores.
        
        Besides, it's not like a jury's decision sets precedent or anything. Jury nullficiation is not the same thing as an appellate decision invalidating a law. When the Supreme Court overturns a law, the police, prosecutors, legislators, etc. are prohibited from enforcing it any further. When a jury nullifies a law, it affects nothing but the defendant in the case over which they are presiding. Someone can be arrested and charged under the very same law the next day and it will be perfectly valid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian Schroth (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    "Can you imagine jury nullification on traffic tickets?"
    
    That would be terrific. It would do wonders to cut down on the ridiculous police state we have, where people are robbed by the government for doing things that should be legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      I'm guessing that you've never actually lived in a police state....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stuart, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    Can you imagine what would happen if a jury could rule based on justice? My God! What a horrible situation that would be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    I agree with your opinions on jury nullification, but "falling to the ground" is a pretty typical nonviolent protest tactic and suing the hospital may or may not be warranted. The sleep business sounds a bit weird.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rhiadon (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    I'll concede that many of his activities were "crackpottish" to coin a phrase. On further thought, I'll agree with Mike's statement that he appears to be a *bit* (emphasis mine) of a crackpot. Not all of his behavior is that of a crackpot however in my opinion. The going limp when being placed under arrest is arguably a form of non-violent civil disobedience. The other stuff, yeah, I'd probably think he was being nutty if I saw it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      I dunno. If he falls to the ground as civil disobedience then where the hell does the ambulance fit into this?
      
      So I guess it was the police who called the ambulance. Therefore I'm wondering if he was taken to the hospital against his wishes, or something. Hence the suing of the hospital. Perhaps, maybe, whatever. Either way somethings cracked here whether it's the guy or the details.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    I find it strange that taking the view of 12 people (the jurors) over one person (the judge) could be considered anti-democratic. Besides, its not like they can decide to reform health-care or declare war. All they can do is say "not guilty" for one case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Crackpot comment
  "Anyway, calling him a crackpot it seems rational to call Gandhi a crackpot as well."
  
  I think we can all agree that Gandhi was indeed a crackpot. I mean, not eating meat? How retarded is that? Plus that dude was nearly naked like ALL The time. Seriously? You can't wear something besides a diaper once in a while?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAC, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re: Crackpot comment
    Have you ever been to India? I think not, it is hotter than hell over there. And that's in the Winter.
    
    Also, don't dish vegetarians. They are healthier and live longer lives than carnivores.
    
    Let's see, with a name like Dark Helmet you must be what, 12 or 13 years old?
    
    No experience, no judgment, no brain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      Wow, my very first attempt at trolling and it was mega-successful. Thank you for falling for it. You truly made my day.
      
      Also, get your sarcasm detector replaced. Yours has failed you. Miserably....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DS, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        You know "Dark Helmet" your problem is you think it's OK to just steal someone else's work and run around pretending to be a character that you didn't create. People like you make me sick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        "You know "Dark Helmet" your problem is you think it's OK to just steal someone else's work and run around pretending to be a character that you didn't create. People like you make me sick."
        
        Uh, what? What work did I "steal"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        "What work did I "steal"?"
        
        TAM
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Don't play dumb Helmet. You're part of the Cult of Masnick. No one believes his tripe except for angry pre-pubescent kids who want to steal their Justin Beaver or whatever the devil the kids listen to these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        I'm going to ignore the majority of your inane comment in favor of the awesomeness that is the name "Justin Beaver".
        
        Bravo, sir. You've made me laugh on this day when I am horribly sick....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Get off my lawn!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        known coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        That is amazing our very own episode of spaceballs here on techdirt. Now please run off and give mel brooks a quarter for the plug.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Actually, Mel is my father's brother's sister's cousins former roomate. What does that make us?
        
        Nothing, but he gave me permission to use the avatar....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DS, 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        Oh, am I to believe that you created Dark Helmet, and you are the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks?
        
        And the letters that you are using, do you have documentation to prove that you have a license to use that font? How dare you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      You expect a 13 yr old to have seen Spaceballs? That movie was old before those kids were born.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      Wooosh!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        i hope so
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      Also, don't dish vegetarians. They are healthier and live longer lives than carnivores.
      
      There is so much wrong with this statement. First, all humans are omnivores. Even if an individual eats only meat or only plants, that still doesn't make him a carnivore or an herbivore.
      
      Secondly, every study I have ever seen that shows vegetarians are healthier or live longer always compare vegetarians with the general population, never with other people that care about what they eat as much as vegetarians do. Vegetarians usually care highly about eating healthy and rightly so, they have to or they'd be less healthy than the general population. Vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food (vitamin b12 deficiencies for example). Vegans are in an even more precarious situation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        "Vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food (vitamin b12 deficiencies for example)."
        
        This simply isn't true. Iron is probably the biggest potential issue in a vegetarian's diet, yet vegetarians don't seem to suffer any more from iron deficiency than the general population. We certainly don't need to take supplements or rely on fortified food to maintain a healthy diet. Vegans may be different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        There's the comparison again.
        
        vegetarians don't seem to suffer any more from iron deficiency than the general population
        
        The general population does not care about their diet nearly as much as vegetarians/vegans do. So you take someone that isn't concerned about their diet and compare their iron intake with someone who not only is concerned but is probably specifically concerned with iron (because that should be fairly well known in the vegetarian/vegan community) and claim they suffer the same. Try comparing someone who is concerned with their diet and also eats animal products and you'll find they aren't concerned about their iron intake.
        
        As for the vitamin b12 thing, I did a quick google search on it. The first link that mentioned vitamin b12 deficiencies was a myth was also a follower of Hulda Clark. A quick google search on her shows that she is most likely a quack. Every other vegetarian/vegan website that I ran across said that you should eat fortified foods or take a supplement.
        
        All that being said, I'm not trying to diss vegetarians/vegans. I think anybody ought to be able to choose what they eat for whatever reason. What I do have a problem with is this very inaccurate comparison. I'd love to see research that compared vegetarian/vegan health/lifespan to similar diet-minded non-vegetarians. So far, I haven't seen it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
        "The general population does not care about their diet nearly as much as vegetarians/vegans do. So you take someone that isn't concerned about their diet and compare their iron intake with someone who not only is concerned but is probably specifically concerned with iron (because that should be fairly well known in the vegetarian/vegan community) and claim they suffer the same."
        
        I was refuting the point about supplements or fortified food. There is absolutely no need to take supplements or fortified food. The comparison was merely contributory evidence. It's your burden to prove your statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food.
        
        "As for the vitamin b12 thing, I did a quick google search on it. The first link that mentioned vitamin b12 deficiencies was a myth"
        
        I wasn't contesting that B12 is an issue, I was contesting the statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified foods. Unless pregnant or breastfeeding then it is unlikely that a non-vegan vegetarian would need to take any B12 supplements or rely on fortified foods. Many do, rather than relying on lots of eggs or low fat yoghurt, but it's not a necessary factor in being a non-vegan vegetarian.
        
        That said, you could rightly argue that your statement was referring to the need for pregnant or breastfeeding woman to take supplements; or that you were referring specifically to vegans, whom some consider true or total vegetarians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      "Also, don't dish vegetarians. They are healthier and live longer lives than carnivores."
      
      I'm vegetarian. While studies show that we tend to be healthier and live longer lives, there is little reason to believe that being vegetarian is a key factor in doing so. As well as being vegetarian I also don't smoke, have never been really poor and exercise a lot.
      
      If you want a reason to be vegetarian then I would suggest considering the economic and ecological impact of food production as more important than any possible health benefits.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 1:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
      Also, don't dish vegetarians. They are healthier and live longer lives than carnivores.
      Yeah but also less intelligent according to Larry Niven "You don't need intelligence to sneak up on a leaf"
      
      /troll :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan Givens, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: Crackpot comment
  You're not being nitpicky; I thought the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:15am

That said, there are serious First Amendment issues raised by this. Jury tampering laws are designed to protect against someone tampering with specific juries, trying to influence the direct outcome. But that's not at all what was happening in either of these two stories. In both cases, it just involved people handing out pamphlets to the general population outside a courtroom, explaining the concepts of jury nullification. That should not be seen as tampering at all. I mean, it's just as easy for someone to sit at home and read about jury nullification online. Why should it be illegal to tell people about it in front of a courthouse?

The indictment is here: http://tyrannyfighters.com/uploads/Heicklen-Julian-Indictment.pdf

Here's the statute he's being charged under:
Influencing juror by writing: Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.
18 U.S.C. 1504.

It's an interesting question. I don't think he can have it both ways though. He can't argue his pamphleteering was not aimed at jurors when his actions were by design specifically targeted at jurors entering the courthouse. There's a difference between giving out information to the general public and giving out information to people who are jurors on their way into the courthouse. The former is free speech, and the latter is jury tampering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  If I walked up to a juror outside of the courthouse and say "A jury can ether declare a defendant guilty or not guilty", is that jury tampering? Is telling the jury that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent" jury tampering?
  
  This guy wasn't saying what they should do, just what they can do. They can find him guilty, they can find him innocent, they can nullify the law if they believe it's unjust.
  
  Wouldn't lying by omission be more likely to be considered jury tampering if the instructions intentionally left out the third option?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    It comes down to intent. Mike's argument is that the influence must be directed at "specific juries" in an attempt "to influence the direct outcome."
    
    The statute applies to "whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any . . . juror . . . upon any issue or matter pending before such juror."
    
    He was standing in front of the courthouse attempting to influence the actions and decisions of any juror he could, and upon any issue or matter pending before that juror. The statute does not require that he have specific knowledge of that juror's case. It applies to "any issue or matter," not only issues and matters of which he has specific knowledge. "Any issue or matter."
    
    Anyway, it'd be interesting to see how courts have treated the issue. A quick search of Westlaw turns up 31 cases citing that statute.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, the answer to my first point is yes. The second point is ignored by the law. And it brings us back to the third point, which according to the letter of the law is also Yes.
      
      Sounds like a lot of people need to spend six months in jail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > He was standing in front of the courthouse
      > attempting to influence the actions and
      > decisions of any juror he could, and upon
      > any issue or matter pending before that juror.
      
      So if I put up a billboard on the highway leading into town which gave a link to www.jurynullification.com, and the tagline "Jury nullification is legal. Know the law!"
      
      Am I guilty of jury tampering for doing that?
      
      If your answer is yes, then Mike is right, there are some serious 1st Amendment concerns here, not the least of which is that such behavior on the part of the government would fly in the face of 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  "The former is free speech, and the latter is jury tampering."
  
  Assuming it is tampering as per the statute, why would tampering and free speech be mutually exclusive?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    Right. Some "speech" is not, in fact, permissible by law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Assuming it is tampering as per the statute, why would tampering and free speech be mutually exclusive?
    
    They are mutually exclusive. Jury tampering is not free speech, and vice versa. Since jury tampering is per se illegal, it cannot also be free speech, since free speech is per se legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And yet stating facts cannot be illegal unless those facts have been deemed state secrets. By your definition a juror reading a newspaper article can be influenced, and thus the reporter is guilty by this statute.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "They are mutually exclusive. Jury tampering is not free speech, and vice versa. Since jury tampering is per se illegal, it cannot also be free speech, since free speech is per se legal."
      
      Do you want a merry-go-round tune to go with that logic? What you've said is that the First Amendment is pointless because although "Congress shall make no law", speech isn't protected if there is a law against it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you want a merry-go-round tune to go with that logic? What you've said is that the First Amendment is pointless because although "Congress shall make no law", speech isn't protected if there is a law against it.
        
        LOL! Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech. Jury tampering is one of them. If it's jury tampering, it's not free speech. There is such thing as speech that isn't free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "LOL! Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech."
        
        I hadn't suggested otherwise. I was calling you out on the assumption that free speech is determined by legality. You continue to cling to that flawed notion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I hadn't suggested otherwise. I was calling you out on the assumption that free speech is determined by legality. You continue to cling to that flawed notion.
        
        How is it flawed? If it's free speech, then it's legal. That's by definition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 4:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If it's free speech, then it's legal. That's by definition."
        
        Uh, in your previous comment you stated that Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech. If free speech is by definition legal, then how would that work? Are you just writing random crap in contrary to whatever comment you're replying to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2011 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh, in your previous comment you stated that Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech. If free speech is by definition legal, then how would that work? Are you just writing random crap in contrary to whatever comment you're replying to?
        
        No, I'm trying to answer you, but you're making a conundrum out of something that is simple. Once Congress defines a law that takes away something that used to be free speech, it is no longer free speech. You're a bright dude, I don't know why this is difficult for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Once Congress defines a law that takes away something that used to be free speech, it is no longer free speech"
        
        Then what is the point of the First Amendment? If the only determination for free speech is what Congress passes as a law then the First Amendment couldn't apply to anything.
        
        What do you even mean by free speech? The context you use it in implies it's some type of speech, rather than referring to the right to speak freely. Do you mean protected speech? Because that would make a bit more sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  Did he ask people if their were jurors first before handing the pamphlets?
  
  Because if he was there distributing a flyer to everyone you can hardly say it was not to inform the public, he wasn't deliberately targeting jurors but all citizens around a public building.
  
  I find your comment malicious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    He stood in front of the courthouse where the jurors entered and exited handing out information directed at jurors. Is it really that malicious to suggest his intent was to influence jurors?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Jurors are not the only ones who enter and leave a courthouse. Unless he was aware they were jurors, your argument falls a little flat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jurors are not the only ones who enter and leave a courthouse. Unless he was aware they were jurors, your argument falls a little flat.
        
        Of course other people enter and exit the courthouse--that doesn't matter. He positioned himself so that he was targeting actual jurors. The non-jurors he likely talked to don't matter. It's the jurors that he targeted that's the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:19am

I just wanted to let people know that jury nullification does exist. Yes, I know jurors swear to uphold the law, but jury nullification allows them to ignore unjust laws. However, courts do not inform jurors of this right because it's a very powerful device and courts do not want it abused. It's the same reason game companies hide cheat codes. They ruin all the fun.

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 C.A.Md. 1969.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  Of course it exists, but I ask you keep in mind that it's not a "right" as you suggest, but merely a "power" as the court in your quote correctly notes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course it exists, but I ask you keep in mind that it's not a "right" as you suggest, but merely a "power" as the court in your quote correctly notes.
    
    Sheeesh...would someone...anyone...explain this to me.
    
    If there is no law prohibiting jury nullification and it's within the jury's power to do so, how then, do they not have the "right" to do so?
    
    People have given me this example: I have the power to exceed the speed limit, but not the right. And this makes sense, my "right" to speed is restricted by law. There is nothing restricting jury nullification so that example falls short.
    
    It seems to be labeling jury nullification as not being a "right" when in all actuality it really is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Think of it this way. If it was your right, then the judge would not be able to kick you off the jury if you told her you intended to exercise your jury nullification power. When something is your right, no one can rightfully prevent you from exercising it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it was your right, then the judge would not be able to kick you off the jury if you told her you intended to exercise your jury nullification power.
        
        Wait, how can the judge kick me off the jury for this? It's legal, it's not punishable and it's defined as a necessary part of our legal system.
        
        It still looks like jury nullification is something judges and lawyers want hidden, so they say "it's not your right" in a attempt to spin it as something I cannot do, but really I can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The judge can kick you off because it's not legal and it's not a right. It violates the oath that a juror takes. It violates the parties' right to a fair trial.
        
        The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no right to jury nullification. There is no debate that the right does not exist.
        
        Don't mistake the fact the only real punishment for exercising this power is being dismissed as a juror, or perhaps having the judge throw out the verdict in a civil case. That's just a quirk of the jury system, not an indication that there is any right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The judge can kick you off because it's not legal.
        
        Ummm..the simple fact that it's expressly NOT illegal, makes it legal.
        
        It violates the oath that a juror takes.
        
        It may violate the jurors' oath. The choice to break an oath is a personal one and I am not arguing that at all.
        
        It violates the parties' right to a fair trial.
        
        Really? A jury deciding that a law is unjust is somehow unfair? How so?
        
        The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no right to jury nullification. There is no debate that the right does not exist.
        
        The Supreme Court weighed in on this, but it's far from clear. If I have the power and it's legal, I have a natural or implied right, no?
        
        Don't mistake the fact the only real punishment for exercising this power is being dismissed as a juror, or perhaps having the judge throw out the verdict in a civil case.
        
        I believe (from previous discussions on this topic) that judges are expressly forbidden to punish a jury in the cases of jury nullification.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, if it were legal, you would have the right to do it. You do not have that right.
        
        Yes, it's unfair. For example, say it's a civil trial with a jury. If you ignore the law and decide for the party that didn't deserve to win, then the party you wrongfully made lose did not get a fair trial.
        
        The Supreme Court has explicitly said that there is no right to jury nullification. It is perfectly clear. It could not be any clearer. They left no ifs, ands, or buts. It is 100% unequivocal.
        
        Look, man, what I'm telling you is fact. It is how it is. It's really simple, yet you're making it difficult.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn...all I get on this subject is legalize double-talk.
        
        No, if it were legal, you would have the right to do it. You do not have that right.
        
        If it's illegal there would be a law against it and I wouldn't have the power to do it. Supreme Court says I have the power to do it. It's an implied right, pure and simple.
        
        Yes, it's unfair. For example, say it's a civil trial with a jury. If you ignore the law and decide for the party that didn't deserve to win, then the party you wrongfully made lose did not get a fair trial.
        
        It's a friggin trial by their peers and the peers decided the law unjust, how much fairer can you get? So one side lost, so what, they were depending on an unjust law.
        
        The Supreme Court has explicitly said that there is no right to jury nullification. It is perfectly clear. It could not be any clearer. They left no ifs, ands, or buts. It is 100% unequivocal.
        
        Except for the fact that a Justice saying something isn't a right didn't remove the right. I still have it, and juries can still decide a law is unjust and vote that way.
        
        Look, man, what I'm telling you is fact. It is how it is. It's really simple, yet you're making it difficult.
        
        I am really not trying to be difficult here, but the facts you are telling me don't stand up to any sort of logic what so ever. It may be simple in your mind, but I tend to question the logic and not just accept facts that are placed in front of me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're simply just using the terms differently than they are used in the legal sense. There is no double-talk. It's quite simple. You're making it difficult because you're using words imprecisely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're simply just using the terms differently than they are used in the legal sense. There is no double-talk. It's quite simple. You're making it difficult because you're using words imprecisely.
        
        Ok. Fair enough. Quite possibly I am.
        
        Perhaps you could be kind enough to tell me which definition of "right" the Supreme Court uses - last time I looked there were 64 different definitions of that word.
        
        When discussing legal issues this is the one that I think of:
        
        �noun
        (Sometimes, rights.) that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Think of it this way. If it was your right, then the judge would not be able to kick you off the jury if you told her you intended to exercise your jury nullification power. When something is your right, no one can rightfully prevent you from exercising it.
        
        Anyone can prevent you from exercising your rights. People do it all the time, and those who are poor seem to have it done to them more than those who are rich. It is your responsibility to protect your rights, and society should strive hard to protect everyone's rights. Society needs to recognize the slippery slope they are on when they start abusing the rights of a few citizens.
        
        People fight for their rights in court all the time, but unfortunately justice isn't completely blind and those who have money have an easier time protecting their rights than those who don't have much money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course people prevent other people from exercising their rights. Sometimes they do so rightfully, and sometimes it's wrongfully. When a judge removes a juror who has expressed an intent to exercise their power of jury nullification, that judge has not wrongfully prevented someone from exercising a right since there is no such right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So the logic is this: Just because a judge (or justice) somewhere said that it is not a right (when really it is because nothing restricts me), this gives the judge in my particular case the ability to prevent me from exercising my right?
        
        I don't know about anybody else, but this produces a divide by zero error in my logic circuits. Probably why I would never be able to be a lawyer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        o the logic is this: Just because a judge (or justice) somewhere said that it is not a right (when really it is because nothing restricts me), this gives the judge in my particular case the ability to prevent me from exercising my right?
        
        I don't know about anybody else, but this produces a divide by zero error in my logic circuits. Probably why I would never be able to be a lawyer.
        
        You can be restricted from doing it if you announce to the court that that's what you're doing. Otherwise you're just getting away with something because the judge cannot read your mind. There is no right. There is only the power. It's quite simple, really. You're making it difficult.
        
        And yes, when the Supreme Court says something is not your right, then legally speaking, that is not your right. End of story. Legally speaking. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yes, when the Supreme Court says something is not your right, then legally speaking, that is not your right.
        
        When has the Supreme Court said such a thing? I could not find any court case before the Supreme Court where the Court said that Jury Nullification was not a right, though I found two from the 1800's where they specifically said it was a right.
        
        I've found three Appellate court decisions (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (6th Cir.1972), and U.S. v. Krzyske 857 F.2d 1089 (2nd Cir. 1988)) but no Supreme Court decisions. Please, enlighten us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know about anybody else, but this produces a divide by zero error in my logic circuits. Probably why I would never be able to be a lawyer.
        
        It causes a divide by zero error in mine too. I guess only lawyers can really understand it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > If it was your right, then the judge would
        > not be able to kick you off the jury if you
        > told her you intended to exercise your jury
        > nullification power.
        
        Nonsense. It's my right to be opposed to the death penalty and yet I'll still be kicked off any jury in a capital case for saying that's what I believe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  As has been discussed on here before, "power" = "right."
  
  Whether something "exists" is not the same has saying someone has a right to do it, or that it is not a violation of the juror's oath.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Hedrick, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:19am

jury nullification
Standing inside the courthouse and passing out such a pamphlet would definitely be an issue- but outside, even on the courthouse steps, is a different matter.

This guy's behavior makes him a crackpot and actually damages his cause. Still, juries as a whole have certain rights and the courts seem to have a problem with informing them of those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: jury nullification
  I agree that there's definitely a line, but not one that's as simple as that. The closer one gets to the courthouse door, the more it evidences the intent to influence actual jurors and not just the public at large. Where exactly was this guy set up? Was it on courthouse property?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: jury nullification
    It was on a public sidewalk outside the courthouse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
      And was he five feet from the door the jurors use to enter the courthouse, or a block away? At some point, the intent becomes clear that he's targeting jurors and not just the general public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - athe, 2 Mar 2011 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
        It's rather easy to delineate - once he crosses the threshold of the courthouse, he's no longer in a (truly) public location, so I would suggest that's when intent becomes clear. Even if he is "five feet from the door the jurors use", general public can still access that area...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
        Intent is never clear unless admitted to or solid evidence is shown. How close he is to the doors is meaningless unless it can be shown that these pamphlets were ONLY given to jurists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
        Intent is never clear unless admitted to or solid evidence is shown. How close he is to the doors is meaningless unless it can be shown that these pamphlets were ONLY given to jurists.
        
        If the criminal doesn't admit his guilty mind, then it has to be deduced from the facts. It's not hard to deduce that his intent was to influence jurors.
        
        Your second sentence makes no sense. He could have handed out pamphlets to hundreds of people. If one of them was a juror, and his intent was in fact to target jurors, then that's jury tampering.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 3 Mar 2011 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jury nullification
        It's not hard to deduce that his intent was to influence jurors.
        
        Beyond reasonable doubt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
corvettekenny (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:25am

The Libertarian Party platform actually encourages jurors to "judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law." (http://www.lp.org/platform)

It seems like the vast majority of laws are passed by special interest groups trying to impose the will of the few onto the many. A jury questioning the justice of the law seems like a much needed balance a legal system corrupted by special interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackie, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:01am

Not jury tampering. Court can order stop and...
It's mot jury tampering. Court can order the guy to stop, stating he's interfering with the impartiality of jurors in a particular trial and then cite him for contempt of court.

It's probably a stupid judge in bed (figurative sense) with the prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Mexico Mark, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:11am

Rockin
We have the best justice system money can buy. Why mess with a good thing?

NMM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- New Mexico Mark, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: Rockin
  That subject was supposed to be "Rocking the boat"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:28pm

well
Doesn't EVERYTHING influence what we do?

If I go to an advertised hotdog stand, then eat a particularly nice hotdog, I'm happier than if it was writhing in maggots....therefore the advertisement has "influenced" me for the rest of the day.........

Even if you DON'T tell the jury about nullification you are "influencing" them to one degree or another.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Sanger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:37pm

More at Volokh
There's a lengthy discussion over at the law blog

http://volokh.com/2011/02/25/suppression-of-jury-nullification-advocates-speech-outside-cour thouse/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 5 Mar 2011 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: More at Volokh
  "There's a lengthy discussion over at the law blog"
  
  The most interesting point I've seen so far in that discussion is the issue of discretionary powers. Some are arguing that given the discretionary powers afforded elsewhere in the system that it makes sense for jurors to be allowed to exercise discretion too.
  
  Whatever way I consider the issue I cannot see how the right solution is to rely on keeping jurors uninformed. If knowledge of jury nullification is an issue then the system is flawed, as it cannot reasonably rely on ignorance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thebes, 3 Mar 2011 @ 12:13pm

Tampering with the Constitution
Pardon me, but didn't some of our forefathers run tyrannical government officers up Liberty Poles for stomping on the rights of The People?

It seems to me they later decided that if a jury of an accused's peers could not agree what he did was wrong, the government had no power to hold him.

The judge and prosecutor here are TAMPERING with OUR RIGHTS guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Revolt against all tyranny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2011 @ 6:51pm

Just remember the people on the from lines fighting for our rights might seems like crackpots, hell the guys at the party of Dec 16th 1773 I bet were looked upon as crackpots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]