Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[Oddball]

"On January 11, 2011," veteran libertarian rights activist Julian Heicklen announced to his Tyranny Fighters email list, "I was notified by summons that I have been criminally charged with jury tampering."


<snip>

"In essence, I want to discuss the jury's right to nullify the law IN FRONT OF A JURY." (The emphasis is Heicklen's). "My position is that neither jury nullification is or that I am on trial. My position is that the judiciary is on trial. Jury nullification needs no defense. It is the law of the land."

The summons, while short on particulars (surprise, surprise), appears to be charging him with telling potential jurors the truth about jury nullification whenever he distributes Fully Informed Jury Association literature in front of courthouses, as he has done for the past 18 months at 27 federal and county courthouses in 20 different states.

However, Heicklen told the Libertarian News Examiner that the summons gave no reason for the charges (surprise, surprise).
"The offense is briefly described as 'Jury Tampering,'" Heicklen said. "There is no mention of FIJA materials, a US Courthouse, or prospective jurors. The indictment papers are not included."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Libertarian rights activist charged with jury tampering - National Libertarian news | Examiner.com Libertarian rights activist charged with jury tampering - National Libertarian news | Examiner.com

Prediction: Heicklen will be hectored and harassed with a slew of spurious and specious charges, just like Laura Kriho was, only to be ultimately, and verrrry verrrry quietly, acquitted of all wrongdoing.

Why?...Because jurors are completely within their rights to judge both the facts at hand and the applicability/justness of the law.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Stay tuned....I will.

 

[Jackson]

I often wondered , since I have watched trials and know how they work, if I was on a jury and informed them about jury nullification, would that be appropriate? Or would that be cause for a mistrial?

 

[Liability]

I am ambivalent on this.

Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.

 

[Oddball]

I often wondered , since I have watched trials and know how they work, if I was on a jury and informed them about jury nullification, would that be appropriate? Or would that be cause for a mistrial?

You would be dismissed with prejudice if you revealed that during the voir dire process.

Maybe the most outlandish charge against Ms. Kriho was the accusation that she "sneaked" onto the jury, by not volunteering her knowledge of her rights before being seated on that panel....Which was, of course, ultimately thrown out.

But now many of the judicial oligarchs are now making a point of it to remove any potential jurors who do know their rights.

 

[Oddball]

I am ambivalent on this.

Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.

Juries take an oath to follow the judge's instructions.

However, if said oath can be construed to be attempting to circumvent or suspend one's rights, that oath is, as a matter of course, null and void ab initio.

One of the biggest untold problems with trying to enforce alcohol prohibition is that juries were refusing to convict, on the basis that the law was unjust and capriciously applied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am ambivalent on this.

Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.

What if you ended up serving on a jury that was hearing a murder charge against a man who shot an intruder in his house in the process of raping his wife. It turns out that this guy happens to be an ex con who took the gun away from the rapists, but the prosecutor is bringing charges because he is tough on crime, and believes that ex cons should always be put in prison if they touch a gun. If the judge instructed you to ignore everything surrounding the issue but the fact that this guy had a gun, and willfully used it on another person, would you think that his understanding of the law trumped your belief that everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family? Or would you send him to prison for the rest of his life for defending them?

Jury nullification is not about ignoring the law, it is about keeping the law form being used to oppress people.

 

[Liability]

I am ambivalent on this.

Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.

What if you ended up serving on a jury that was hearing a murder charge against a man who shot an intruder in his house in the process of raping his wife. It turns out that this guy happens to be an ex con who took the gun away from the rapists, but the prosecutor is bringing charges because he is tough on crime, and believes that ex cons should always be put in prison if they touch a gun. If the judge instructed you to ignore everything surrounding the issue but the fact that this guy had a gun, and willfully used it on another person, would you think that his understanding of the law trumped your belief that everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family? Or would you send him to prison for the rest of his life for defending them?

Jury nullification is not about ignoring the law, it is about keeping the law form being used to oppress people.

You are confusing different things. It happens.

As I noted earlier, juries sometimes refuse to adhere to an unjust law. Or, even if the law itself is just, they may decline to APPLY it in an unfair fashion.

But that's DIFFERENT than charging a jury on the law and telling them that while they are obligated by their OATHS to adhere to the law, they are nonetheless free to disregard the law if they dislike it in this case.

No judge is EVER going to tell a jury that. It's self-refuting gibberish.

Juries may DO it. But judges cannot "instruct" them that the law can be ignored at the same time that judges tell juries that they must follow the law.

You are a juror. The defendant is charged with criminal possession of "B." The judge charges you on a (make believe) legal concept: "All A are always B."

If you find that the Government has proved to you from all of the evidence -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that the defendant possessed "A," then you must find that the defendant possessed "B."

(So far, so good.)

But I charge you as a matter of law, that even if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant possessed "A," you are free to determine that the defendant did not possess "B."

I mean, seriously. That's not a rational or reasonable statement of law. It's absolute gibberish.

 

[Oddball]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

 

[Liability]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

If the LAW says a jury MUST do X, then the judge will (unless a boob) so instruct the jury.

What YOU are a proponent of, Oddball, is the notion that a JURY will have the presence of mind to REJECT "X" if X" is determined by them to be unjust or if "X" somehow constitutes a violation of what they recognize as an American's rights. I think you are correct. I think that's how come juries DO, periodically, come to verdicts that the "law" itself might not actually have contemplated.

Juries tend to take their tasks seriously. Juries, by and large, wouldn't dream of "nullifying" a just law or nullifying the FAIR application of a law. But sometimes they absolutely WILL take a stand on an unjust law or on the unjust application of a law.

In that latter sense, jury nullification is somewhat akin to that tool the SCOTUS granted to itself. But with a JURY, it's more a kind of NON-Judicial "review."

 

[Oddball]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

Which is why the judicial oligarchs hate nullification...Can't have mere rabble coming into the court and telling the ruling class that what they're trying to enforce is pure crap.

 

[Liability]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

Which is why the judicial oligarchs hate nullification...Can't have mere rabble coming into the court and telling the ruling class that what they're trying to enforce is pure crap.

There are other reasons to dislike the notion of jury nullification. Aside from sounding like a dick telling a jury that they MUST follow the law but that they are free not to ( ), judges sometimes have concerns that a jury might disregard that part of a complicated set of legal instructions which is actually NEEDED for the law to work PROPERLY. If a jury gets mislead due to emotionalism of some attorney's closing argument, for example, it might be helpful (if we want a jury to reach a fair and just verdict) if a judge steers them back toward REASON.

Jury nullification can be a wonderful (shhhh) tool. But it doesn't always achieve those results by the force of logical reasoning. And some verdicts that are unreasonable are also unfair and unjust.

We love jury nullification when a jury says "Fuck you" to a dumbass law like Prohibition, maybe. But we might not like it nearly as much if it leads a jury to acquit some asshole of murder which he committed and which the evidence proves he committed -- for reasons that have nothing to do with fairness, valid claims of right or justice.

 

[Oddball]

Well, that's where the common man has to be trusted to recognize a just application of the law --i.e. crimes of force and fraud-- and bullshit like some harmless hippie smoking a joint on the corner.

A stretch for ruling class oligarchs, I know.

 

[Ravi]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

Which is why the judicial oligarchs hate nullification...Can't have mere rabble coming into the court and telling the ruling class that what they're trying to enforce is pure crap.

Yep, God forbid someone speak out against property owners.

 

[Oddball]

I'm almost afraid to ask what in hell you're babbling about.

 

[Intense]

There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.

Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

If the LAW says a jury MUST do X, then the judge will (unless a boob) so instruct the jury.

What YOU are a proponent of, Oddball, is the notion that a JURY will have the presence of mind to REJECT "X" if X" is determined by them to be unjust or if "X" somehow constitutes a violation of what they recognize as an American's rights. I think you are correct. I think that's how come juries DO, periodically, come to verdicts that the "law" itself might not actually have contemplated.

Juries tend to take their tasks seriously. Juries, by and large, wouldn't dream of "nullifying" a just law or nullifying the FAIR application of a law. But sometimes they absolutely WILL take a stand on an unjust law or on the unjust application of a law.

In that latter sense, jury nullification is somewhat akin to that tool the SCOTUS granted to itself. But with a JURY, it's more a kind of NON-Judicial "review."

The first exception to that one would be OJ. Let's ignore a years presentation of evidence and acquit. How long was the Jury out on that? How about Delay being Tried in the most liberal County in Texas? I sense allot of laundry gets played with in the wash, in the Legal system.

 

[Oddball]

Except that the OJ jury didn't acquit on the basis of nullification...They had only poorly presented evidence from a horribly inept prosecution team.

 

[Intense]

Except that the OJ jury didn't acquit on the basis of nullification...They had only poorly presented evidence from a horribly inept prosecution team.

Much more than that went on. Where was the Trial held? There was enough blood evidence to convict him 10 times over. The Media circus was a problem too. I even blame the Judge more than the Prosecution. Blown way out of proportion and way out of hand.

 

[Ravi]

I'm almost afraid to ask what in hell you're babbling about.

No doubt...

In one thread you are saying the rabble shouldn't be allowed to vote and in this one you are siding with the rabble.

You are as big a phony as Liarbility, who claims to be a conservative while wanting the government to investigate people because they distrust the government.

Such irony should be a commodity to be enjoyed by all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am ambivalent on this.

Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.

What if you ended up serving on a jury that was hearing a murder charge against a man who shot an intruder in his house in the process of raping his wife. It turns out that this guy happens to be an ex con who took the gun away from the rapists, but the prosecutor is bringing charges because he is tough on crime, and believes that ex cons should always be put in prison if they touch a gun. If the judge instructed you to ignore everything surrounding the issue but the fact that this guy had a gun, and willfully used it on another person, would you think that his understanding of the law trumped your belief that everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family? Or would you send him to prison for the rest of his life for defending them?

Jury nullification is not about ignoring the law, it is about keeping the law form being used to oppress people.

You are confusing different things. It happens.

As I noted earlier, juries sometimes refuse to adhere to an unjust law. Or, even if the law itself is just, they may decline to APPLY it in an unfair fashion.

But that's DIFFERENT than charging a jury on the law and telling them that while they are obligated by their OATHS to adhere to the law, they are nonetheless free to disregard the law if they dislike it in this case.

No judge is EVER going to tell a jury that. It's self-refuting gibberish.

Juries may DO it. But judges cannot "instruct" them that the law can be ignored at the same time that judges tell juries that they must follow the law.

You are a juror. The defendant is charged with criminal possession of "B." The judge charges you on a (make believe) legal concept: "All A are always B."

If you find that the Government has proved to you from all of the evidence -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that the defendant possessed "A," then you must find that the defendant possessed "B."

(So far, so good.)

But I charge you as a matter of law, that even if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant possessed "A," you are free to determine that the defendant did not possess "B."

I mean, seriously. That's not a rational or reasonable statement of law. It's absolute gibberish.

That would not be how it works. If you are going to nullify the first thing you do is determine if the law is being applied properly, and that the law is not unconscionable. If it passes those two tests you can determine if the accused is guilty, if it doesn't the person is not guilty.

Does that make it less gibberish, and more of a rational and reasonable statement of law?

 

[Oddball]

I'm almost afraid to ask what in hell you're babbling about.

No doubt...

In one thread you are saying the rabble shouldn't be allowed to vote and in this one you are siding with the rabble.

You are as big a phony as Liarbility, who claims to be a conservative while wanting the government to investigate people because they distrust the government.

Such irony should be a commodity to be enjoyed by all.

Maybe because there's a time and place for the opinions of the common man, in assenting to and enforcing the laws foisted upon them?

Maybe I'm in support of juries as the fourth branch of de jure government?

You know, that whole "separation of powers" thingy?