I'll throw one of your favorite challenges back at you:
Cite? [Specifically a citation to caselaw or statute that says that engaging the public on a subject regarding an aspect of the judicial system (which itself is completely legal) is the equivalent of "jury tampering" merely because some judge would rather his/her juries don't know about it.]
Read the Turney case I quoted below for starters, and then the Cox v. Louisiana case I quoted as well.
It's OK to do that to the general public, but when it's specifically targeted at prospective jurors with the intent to influence them, it's tampering.
Since no one is in any physical danger whatsoever by being handed a pamphlet on jury nullification, the "fire in a crowded theater" paradigm doesn't apply.
And yet the Supreme Court used that very analogy when declaring a statute that disallowed picketing near the courthouse to be constitutional. I quoted it below, but I'll quote the relevant part here:
Nor does such a statute infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free assembly. The conduct which is the subject of this statute-picketing and parading-is subject to regulation even though intertwined with expression and association. The examples are many of the application by this Court of the principle that certain forms of conduct mixed with speech may be regulated or prohibited. The most classic of these was pointed out long ago by Mr. Justice Holmes: ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.’ Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S.Ct. 247, 249, 63 L.Ed. 470.
There must have been a recent and spectacular expansion of the definition of "jury tampering" that I wasn't aware of if it now encompasses discussion of general jury practices which are completely legal but which judges just don't care for.
It's nothing new. Attempting to influence people known to be prospective jurors is illegal. It's been illegal for years and years.
I'm not "admitting that I'm 100% wrong" because the case law you cited specifically says that jurors have a right to jury nullification.
No it doesn't. It specifically says the opposite. Shall I quote it for you again?
See, when someone has "de facto power" to do something that is a fancy lawyer way of saying that they have a natural right.
Absolutely wrong. I have the de facto power to murder someone. Does that mean I have the right?
I never argued that it was specifically spelled out in the law, only that you made a rather foolish statement and then tried very hard to back it up after the fact.
What was "foolish" about my statement? My statement was 100% accurate.
Natural rights supersede legal rights, and while no one (including me) is interested in a legal system where juries are regularly ignoring the law. The right to nullify is a natural right which occurs under our system of law and the Supreme Court decided not to invalidate that right by removing it through legal means.
A juror who announces that he will exercise his power to nullify is removed from the jury for cause. If it was a right of any kind, then that juror would have the right to do it--but they don't. The whole "natural right" argument makes no sense to me. It's no more a "right" than my "right" to murder the judge.
I still don't get these natural right arguments you make. If I tried to take away your ability to breath, you'd have recourse in the courts whether it's a tort (trespass, battery, unsafe work condition, etc.) or a crime (attempted murder, battery, etc.). You would go to court with a theory of how I violated your right, and it wouldn't be your "natural" right.
Same with publishing. If I tried to stop you from publishing, you'd be able to name a specific right other than your "natural" right that I was violating. Yes, the First Amendment says I can't violate certain rights, but it's understood in the courts that the negative of the First Amendment also creates positive rights. My being disallowed to stop you from publishing creates in you the right to not be stopped in publishing.
If jury nullification isn't illegal, then it is legal. But it's not legal, since no one has the right to do it. There is no middle ground that I know of--it's a strict dichotomy between legal and illegal.
I simply for the life of me do not understand this natural right argument you've been making over several threads. Do you have any caselaw that demonstrates your point? You know I love the caselaw. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
Because his attitude turned me off, I decided to blow him off. If people want to act nice and ask questions, I'm happy to answer them. Pulling out the attitude about how I'd fail the bar exam while asking me a question won't get any love from me. Why don't you ask him why he pulled the attitude, Gabriel?
The reason it's a compelling state interest is because pamphleteering prospective jurors is jury tampering, and the First Amendment offers no protection to such tampering. It's criminal because it violates one's right to a fair trial.
Of course I do. That statement is simply erroneous. Show me where in this thread my understanding has been poor and wrong. I'm one of the only ones stating actual facts. What have you added?
That sounds bad to me, and exactly the kind of thing that's not supposed to happen in a jury deliberation. I suspect the pathologist would have been dismissed for cause in voir dire if the case involved blood evidence for that exact reason.
Yes, I can't imagine how the right to free speech would cover something as out there as discussing important legal issues with other private citizens on public land in situations that cause neither hazard nor inconvenience nor cost to others. Surely, the first amendment was crafted to only allow people to discuss non-controversial issues, with themselves, and only in their own basements (but only if a judge approves of the content).
Way to set 'em straight, AJ.
The caselaw I cited that addressed these issues found that such speech directed at prospective jurors is jury tampering, and as such, it's not protected speech. Thank you, though, I am trying to "set 'em straight."
And given the fact that nullificiation is indeed legal in most jurisdictions, it's hard to see how talking about it could corrupt the system or how it could be constitutional to ban talking about it.
According to the caselaw I cited below, nullification is not a right in any U.S. jurisdiction.
Although both statements are true the second is not a consequence of the first. (Since you have a first amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and say pretty much anything you like - whether the founding fathers agree or not.) However it is also a strawman - since no-one made that argument in the first place.
Actually, the caselaw I cited below makes it clear that you do not have a First Amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and attempt to tamper with the jury. Jury tampering is not protected speech.
Nowhere in the law is it explicitly stated that you have a right to breathe. So, legally speaking, you "don't have the right" to breathe. That doesn't mean breathing is unlawful.
You don't have a right to breath? So I can legally take away all your oxygen? I wouldn't be violating your rights, right? You don't have a right to live?
Or, let's take plagiarism as an example. Unless it's also copyright infringement, plagiarism is not illegal in any way. You could take a public domain work, publish it under your own name, and there would be no legal consequences. But many people would think you "don't have the right" to do that.
I don't follow. If you publish a work without any possible legal consequences, then you are exercising your right to publish. That's the First Amendment, no?
It's similar with jury nullification. Judges may opine that juries don't have that right; but unless that right is removed by law, they're not doing anything unlawful.
Judges aren't just opining that juries don't have that right, they are stating the law. If a juror's intent to nullify is known, that juror can be removed for cause. If a person is convicted despite the evidence, that person can get the verdict overturned on appeal.
Now that the MPAA and RIAA have partnered with Homeland Security the old business model of using lawyers to sue is no longer needed. DHS apparently doesn't need court approval or any justification to shut down any site that the a major financial contributor desires. Not sure how this will affect the lawyers but for the MPAA and RIAA all legal cost are now paid by the taxpayers.
What site has DHS shut down without any justification?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cite? [Specifically a citation to caselaw or statute that says that engaging the public on a subject regarding an aspect of the judicial system (which itself is completely legal) is the equivalent of "jury tampering" merely because some judge would rather his/her juries don't know about it.]
Read the Turney case I quoted below for starters, and then the Cox v. Louisiana case I quoted as well.
It's OK to do that to the general public, but when it's specifically targeted at prospective jurors with the intent to influence them, it's tampering.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're supposed to use what you know.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet the Supreme Court used that very analogy when declaring a statute that disallowed picketing near the courthouse to be constitutional. I quoted it below, but I'll quote the relevant part here:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's nothing new. Attempting to influence people known to be prospective jurors is illegal. It's been illegal for years and years.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it doesn't. It specifically says the opposite. Shall I quote it for you again?
See, when someone has "de facto power" to do something that is a fancy lawyer way of saying that they have a natural right.
Absolutely wrong. I have the de facto power to murder someone. Does that mean I have the right?
I never argued that it was specifically spelled out in the law, only that you made a rather foolish statement and then tried very hard to back it up after the fact.
What was "foolish" about my statement? My statement was 100% accurate.
Natural rights supersede legal rights, and while no one (including me) is interested in a legal system where juries are regularly ignoring the law. The right to nullify is a natural right which occurs under our system of law and the Supreme Court decided not to invalidate that right by removing it through legal means.
A juror who announces that he will exercise his power to nullify is removed from the jury for cause. If it was a right of any kind, then that juror would have the right to do it--but they don't. The whole "natural right" argument makes no sense to me. It's no more a "right" than my "right" to murder the judge.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nullification
How is exercising a right you don't have "legal"?
What *is* a right is talking about nullification.
Not when it's jury tampering.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same with publishing. If I tried to stop you from publishing, you'd be able to name a specific right other than your "natural" right that I was violating. Yes, the First Amendment says I can't violate certain rights, but it's understood in the courts that the negative of the First Amendment also creates positive rights. My being disallowed to stop you from publishing creates in you the right to not be stopped in publishing.
If jury nullification isn't illegal, then it is legal. But it's not legal, since no one has the right to do it. There is no middle ground that I know of--it's a strict dichotomy between legal and illegal.
I simply for the life of me do not understand this natural right argument you've been making over several threads. Do you have any caselaw that demonstrates your point? You know I love the caselaw. :)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
The reason it's a compelling state interest is because pamphleteering prospective jurors is jury tampering, and the First Amendment offers no protection to such tampering. It's criminal because it violates one's right to a fair trial.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not when it amounts to jury tampering.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as the caselaw that I quoted demonstrates, my statement was 100% correct. Why doesn't the AC "own up" and admit that he was 100% wrong?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to set 'em straight, AJ.
The caselaw I cited that addressed these issues found that such speech directed at prospective jurors is jury tampering, and as such, it's not protected speech. Thank you, though, I am trying to "set 'em straight."
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nullification
According to the caselaw I cited below, nullification is not a right in any U.S. jurisdiction.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although both statements are true the second is not a consequence of the first. (Since you have a first amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and say pretty much anything you like - whether the founding fathers agree or not.) However it is also a strawman - since no-one made that argument in the first place.
Actually, the caselaw I cited below makes it clear that you do not have a First Amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and attempt to tamper with the jury. Jury tampering is not protected speech.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: avg. Joe still barking out of butt
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have a right to breath? So I can legally take away all your oxygen? I wouldn't be violating your rights, right? You don't have a right to live?
Or, let's take plagiarism as an example. Unless it's also copyright infringement, plagiarism is not illegal in any way. You could take a public domain work, publish it under your own name, and there would be no legal consequences. But many people would think you "don't have the right" to do that.
I don't follow. If you publish a work without any possible legal consequences, then you are exercising your right to publish. That's the First Amendment, no?
It's similar with jury nullification. Judges may opine that juries don't have that right; but unless that right is removed by law, they're not doing anything unlawful.
Judges aren't just opining that juries don't have that right, they are stating the law. If a juror's intent to nullify is known, that juror can be removed for cause. If a person is convicted despite the evidence, that person can get the verdict overturned on appeal.
I'm just not following you here.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: The entire p2p issue is absurd!!
Second, it's infringement no matter how strong or weak the copy protection.
Third, it doesn't matter if the people distributing it illegally make a profit. It's infringement even if those distributors lose money.
On the post: With ACS:Law And MediaCAT Shutting Down, What Does It Mean For US Copyright Group?
Re: Old Business Model
What site has DHS shut down without any justification?
Next >>