Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.
Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.
[…]
“No legal system could long survive,” they added, “if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”
Umm… Like they are trying to do with this guy by disregarding his 1st Amendment rights?
Many states already allow jury nullification, i.e., juries are judges of both the law and the facts. These legal systems have survived for almost 250 years.
Jury Nullification was the LAST BASTION OF FREEDOM against an overly dictatorial government !!! Even if the three branches agreed to something and passed a law against it, the PEOPLE could rule otherwise by JURY NULLIFICATION !!! Wise Founding Fathers put that SAFETY VALVE in the Bill of Rights where it says you must be convicted by a jury of your peers !!! But of course, Bush called the Constitution “Just a God-damned piece of paper!!!”, so it remains to be seen if we have a Nation of Laws and Jurys or of Men who want to ride roughshod over the Rights of the People !!! Don’t be afraid to use Jury Nullification, despite all the YELLING AND SCREAMING YOUR MIGHT HEAR FROM THE SO CALLED “LEGAL PROFESSION” OR “LAW ENFORCEMENT” !!!
Agreed. As a juror, you are the judge of both the laws and the facts. No jury worth their salt would convict a six year old of being a sex offender for playing doctor.
Now it’s illegal to inform people of the law?
Next thing you know, you’re going to need a Freedom of Information Request to read the Constitution.
There is no such law. Nullification is power Jury has “de-facto”. By its very existence. That is (in opinion of most) why the jury system have been implemented in first place.
You can’t advocate for specific behavior by the jurors no more than accused can call them at home (that is too a speech… not a free speech). Advocating particular behavior of jurors is indeed tampering. Jurors MUST arrive at their own conclusions without advocates and lobbyists for whatever outcome or cause having their influence first. Only influence MUST be their own and unspoiled view of what have happened in the Court. If not all kinds of pro-prosecution or pro-defense may claim “free speech” to contact all potential jurors and skew their opinion outside of the Court.
Informing them of what they CAN do is not the same as advocating they do it.
AFAIK, there is no law that says you can’t do that.
That’s exactly what I was going to say.
And I guess now I did.
The last thing a lawyer wants is an informed juror. That’s grounds for disqualification in every state in the union.
Actually, at her last go-around for jury duty, I told my wife to ask about the applicability of some very specific point of law and about jury nullification in order to get out of any jury pool.
It seems to have worked because they haven’t called or written since and its been years. (They can’t even risk anyone poisoning the jury pool.)
The last thing a lawyer wants is an informed juror. That’s grounds for disqualification in every state in the union.
Take a “bubblegum flavored energy drink nasal spray” point.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The law supersedes mob rule, in this case a jury.
Are we sure he’s 79. and not 12 with progeria.
But what if the mob of lawyers at a statehouse wrote a bad law . . . ?
“Rights”? What rights? We might as well be using the Constitution as a roll of toilet paper! We The People have no “rights”. We might have a few privileges but you can be sure that there are no more rights for anyone other than those in power. (Funny how the powerful are mostly lawyers.)
And here is just one more example of the erosion of rights in “Amerika”.
Now, if you want to stop this erosion of “rights” then be sure to vote! Even as ineffective as it is you still need to do it. But more than that, be sure to vote correctly. Remember, sooner or later your party/candidate will go away and the other side (other candidate) will get that same power.
There was a case some years back of a sharecropper who was accused of “borrowing” the mule of a less than well liked gentleman/landlord who was charged and tried for stealing a mule.
The jury listened to the evidence and came back with a “not guilty but he has to return the mule.”
The judge in the case said that’s stupid. If he has to return the mule then he clearly is guilty!
The jury response was, “Okay, then he can keep the mule!”
The verdict stood.
Today, the landlord would have visiting rights every second weekend, but would still have to house and feed the mule and the sharecropper.
I’m skeptical
If jury nullification is bad, why is no one distributing propaganda to counter his view? This makes me want to stand in front of the courthouse with a legalize freedom or legalize weed sign. I wonder what absurd charges will follow that!
If I stand in front of the courthouse with propaganda that says anything the person receiving the propaganda can choose to ignore me or not or move their position toward the views I advocate or not. Did these persecutors consider that they have the last word in the indoctrinating process and counter the effects of this horrible propaganda? No, of course not because they need their police state tools.
I like the subtle propaganda in the story.
Essentially, it is an example of, “It is not just us that thinks this issue should be looked at. There is a whole other group of people that agree.”
The article made the point with “indicted” that the government had a jury, in this case a grand jury, convene to consider if there was evidence to justify the filing of charges. Many major crimes involve grand juries, but indictments seem to be brushed aside and the discussion revolves around charges.
Expect the persecutors to later say, “We are just acting on what the grand jury gave us,” and “Trials are about determining guilt,” and “Why are you denying the examination of potential guilt because people are innocent until proved guilty.” This all ignores the reality that the charges amount to “Shut Up Slave!”
Knowledge of the law is presumed, but actual knowledge of the law is a crime? ha, ha. Yes, the system must be served. Jury Null is very rare. Thats too bad for all those laws we disagree with. Says something about the “spirit” of man, or the body politic. Yes–I will vote to put a person in jail for doing the same thing I do, I just haven’t been caught. Cue Pedro.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-08/markets/30154903_1_homeland-security-rapiscan-systems-screening-devices
Spending increases and I am sure members of congress trade the stock. Oh wait lmgtfy
http://examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/members-of-congress-own-stock-scanner-companies-conflict-of-interests
Its a win win for everyone.
The good nugget in the article occurs toward the bottom:
“jury nullification had at times produced just results, like acquittals by Northern juries in prosecutions under the fugitive slave laws.”
Actually, one of the most effective ways to get jury nullification pamphlets out to jurors was a method I saw employed a few years back in the Criminal Courts (aka OJ, Conrad Murray trial) building.
I was on jury duty at the time. Went to the men’s room and there on the ledge of the tile, above each urinal, was a pamphlet! Perfect because, the distributor wasn’t bothering anyone, wasn’t seen putting the pamphlets up, and had a captive audience that, for a minute or so, was staring right at the literature.
Unfortunately, most juries are heterosexual these days, and there are no equivalent placement opportunities in the women’s room, AFAIK
You could always tape the pamphlet to the inside of the stall door.
…All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted… Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter.
One alteration in mind:
Impeach this DA, who so brazenly unprotects the 1st Amendment, in stark violation of the DA’s oath of office.
Do it, and do it soon, for others of similar mind are lurking, watching, waiting.
If this is not jury tampering, what is? He is telling jurors they can ignore the law they are supposed to be upholding.
I wonder what this guy’s problem is. What makes a nut case spend his retirement fucking with the legal system?
I have been totally disregarding the news for the past three weeks, and I feel soooo much better. Seems that tv, radio, and internet “news” only heightens your anxiety.
Who needs it? I am almost done with this web site in my efforts to enjoy life.
Yes. Ignorance is bliss. I need more bliss, and less BS.
Come on, sing along with the rest of the sheep:
“If You’re Happy and you Know it… Shake your Chains”
Well, you can be as angry as you like. Good luck with that.
What a sad state we live in…
Informed juries??? My GOD, man, next you’ll be wanting informed CONSUMERS and informed PATIENTS and…..
Where does it END???
Jury tampering? I don’t know. Seems to me the judge can ignore a verdict they don’t like and order a new trial. THAT seems like nullification, to me.
Jury of your peers? Juries (in the US) are usually made up of people who can’t find a way out of it. When was the last time the CEO of a major corporation served? You get retired people, unemployed people, low level employees that won’t be missed at work. People who keenly follow the news, who research the situation, who understand the processes, are not welcomed to juries. Peers? Poop! If Alfie were on trial, they’d have to prove an IQ of 80 and a predilection for mythology.
Imagine if an accused terrorist faced a jury, and was acquitted by nullification.
if it wasn’t for this case, I wouldn’t know about nullification.
Or a mother not reporting her daughter’s death for a month and being convicted by nullification.
OJ. THAT jury should have been nullified.
A terrorist facing a jury? hahahaha. Not likely with the justice system Deadeye Dick stuck us with.
Well, so-called “Conspiracy Laws” would be next !!! Conspiracy Laws fly in the face of “Freedom of Speech”. Talking about something is NOT THE SAME AS DOING SOMETHING, but “Law Enforcement” has fallen back on “Conspiracy” when they don’t have enough HARD EVIDENCE to link the alleged perpetrators with the alleged crime, so they accuse the accused of “Talking about doing a crime” and generally get convictions because Juries won’t NULLIFY CONSPRIACY LAWS !!!
I’d be OK with professional jurors.
Does the “jury of your peers” phrase mean they have to be amateurs?
With professional jurors, you could set minimum education and logic standards.
The one jury I sat on almost deadlocked because one of our members simply couldn’t be logical.
She insisted on acquitting him because his kids were cute. (No kidding!) To be honest, we basically bullied her into voting guilty.
You mean, like in the south, how Southern Democrats fought tooth and nail for segregation. That they should just be able to decide they don’t agree with the federal law and do what ever they want? Like that????