Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[goldcatt]

What the cases and their embedded citations spell out is what you challenged George on. A judge instructing the jury on nullification is reversible error. A juror bent on nullification can be removed. A defense based on nullification can be denied. An officer of the court who argues nullification to the jury can be cited. And a jury verdict based on such instruction or argument can be nullified at the court's discretion.

It's don't ask, don't tell for juries as far as nullifying is concerned.

A whackaloon handing out pamphlets telling juries they have a right to nullify? Liability was right. Even if there were an applicable statute it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to charge anyone like this with anything but possibly littering. Why draw attention to something that's only going to gum up the works?

 

[Oddball]

What the cases and their embedded citations spell out is what you challenged George on. A judge instructing the jury on nullification is reversible error. A juror bent on nullification can be removed. A defense based on nullification can be denied. An officer of the court who argues nullification to the jury can be cited. And a jury verdict based on such instruction or argument can be nullified at the court's discretion.

It's don't ask, don't tell for juries as far as nullifying is concerned.

A whackaloon handing out pamphlets telling juries they have a right to nullify? Liability was right. Even if there were an applicable statute it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to charge anyone like this with anything but possibly littering. Why draw attention to something that's only going to gum up the works?

Right...A very apropos comparison.

So, did DADT make it illegal for gays to serve in the military?

 

[goldcatt]

What the cases and their embedded citations spell out is what you challenged George on. A judge instructing the jury on nullification is reversible error. A juror bent on nullification can be removed. A defense based on nullification can be denied. An officer of the court who argues nullification to the jury can be cited. And a jury verdict based on such instruction or argument can be nullified at the court's discretion.

It's don't ask, don't tell for juries as far as nullifying is concerned.

A whackaloon handing out pamphlets telling juries they have a right to nullify? Liability was right. Even if there were an applicable statute it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to charge anyone like this with anything but possibly littering. Why draw attention to something that's only going to gum up the works?

Right...A very apropos comparison.

So, did DADT make it illegal for gays to serve in the military?

Nobody's arguing that jury nullification is a crime.

 

[Oddball]

Then, if it's not a crime, it only follows that it's lawful action.

 

[manifold]

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.

Burn

 

[goldcatt]

Then, if it's not a crime, it only follows that it's lawful action.

It's action that cannot be punished.

Is it "lawful"? That's a debate with two sides. But no, it's not criminal.

 

[Ravi]

Again, the summons, if he even got one, contains no details of what he is being charged for...so unless that information is divulged we will never know.

 

[Oddball]

Then, if it's not a crime, it only follows that it's lawful action.

It's action that cannot be punished.

Is it "lawful"? That's a debate with two sides. But no, it's not criminal.

No debate about it.

Were it unlawful, people like Laura Kriho and Julian Heicklen would have had the book thrown at them.

 

[Oddball]

Again, the summons, if he even got one, contains no details of what he is being charged for...so unless that information is divulged we will never know.

That's the point...There's nothing with which to charge him.

It's judicial harassment, plain and simple.

 

[Ravi]

Again, the summons, if he even got one, contains no details of what he is being charged for...so unless that information is divulged we will never know.

That's the point...There's nothing with which to charge him.

It's judicial harassment, plain and simple.

According to the NYP...he is the one that was committing judicial harassment...he was harassing a judge. He's also sued Homeland Security or something...he's a whacko, still traumatized by something that happened when he was eight days old.

 

[goldcatt]

Then, if it's not a crime, it only follows that it's lawful action.

It's action that cannot be punished.

Is it "lawful"? That's a debate with two sides. But no, it's not criminal.

No debate about it.

Were it unlawful, people like Laura Kriho and Julian Heicklen wold have had the book thrown at them.

I was speaking of jury nullification itself, not handing out pamphlets about it.

What would they be charged with? Littering? People advocate all kinds of crazy stuff. As long as they're doing it in a legal manner as far as their behavior is concerned, that's free speech.

If you want me to speculate, and it would only be pure and unadulterated speculation, either some inexperienced and annoyed prosecutor is letting his temper get the best of him and no charges will ever actually be filed or this particular guy did something more than hand out pamphlets people tossed on the ground. And my money would be on the latter.

We have no facts. Only assumptions. Never assume.

 

[Oddball]

Kriho didn't just hand out pamphlets....She hung a jury.

I imagine that your speculation is right on the mark.

 

[goldcatt]

Kriho didn't just hand out pamphlets....She hung a jury.

I imagine that your speculation is right on the mark.

Sure. Apparently there are reports this guy has a history of harassing folks. I could see where a young punk fed up with the BS might go on a fishing expedition. Not likely, but it could happen.

 

[goldcatt]

Holy crap! I'd never heard of the man, but a quick google search says a lot. How many times has this Heicklen guy been arrested in 2010 alone? Drugs, contempt of court, failure to appear, trespass....he's a one man public nuisance.

Free speech only covers the speech, you still can't break the law while speaking. If you do, being arrested and punished for it isn't being persecuted. It's not "what" he was passing out, it's where he was doing it that got him arrested over...and over...and over again. And he knew it, and deliberately did it anyway. You cannot pamphleteer concerning any topic on Federal property. There is a very good reason for that. You stand right across the property line and you can pass out anything you want.

His credibility concerning the facts just went way down in my estimation. If he's ignoring court orders to stop writing letters to the judge in his pending case, what else did he do for attention?

A pro-pot libertarian activist who’s been repeatedly busted in front of the Manhattan federal courthouse has defied a judge’s order to stop sending him letters.

Julian Heicklen, 78, told Manhattan federal Judge Richard Holwell that he’ll cease only when Holwell recuses himself from Heicklen’s civil-rights case, "as I have requested previously."

"In the event that you are considering a contempt of court charge against me, you have misjudged the situation," Heicklen wrote in a letter filed today.

"My feeling toward this court is not contempt. It is hatred, intense hatred."

Read more: Libertarian activist defies judge’s order - NYPOST.com

I'll have to remember the name and try to find a somewhat objective source to follow what happens. If nothing else, it looks like it'll be entertaining.

 

[Oddball]

Not against the law to be a gadfly.

Try Googling Rick Stanley.

 

[goldcatt]

A gadfly? Is that what you call it?

Dear Lord, he's been in jail in three states in one year and arrested in a fourth but apparently skipped bail. And that's in a quick search of the blogs that post the films from the cameramen he takes along to record his very deliberate arrests. I'm not surprised that when he went looking for trouble, he found some.

No, there's waaaay more to this story than we're being told, I'm sure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't illegal in the sense that you will never find a statute expressly prohibiting it. But you will find cases prohibiting it. And you will also find judges who instruct juries that they must follow the law of the case - and this includes the law defining the crime charged.

Right Wing Whackodom is FILLED with what I like to call convenient myths. These are myths that mirror what the Right would LIKE reality to be. This is one of those myths.

Right Wing Whackodom?

I know there are some that argue that we are a nation of laws, and that the law trumps right and wrong. I will simply point out that even if the law was handed down by God himself, which it obviously is not, it would still be administered by imperfect human beings that make mistakes. Telling any thinking person that they have to follow the law when it is obvious not only that the law is wrong, but that the person charged with breaking the law, though technically guilty, is right is something right wing hardliners would actually back.

I know that some, including you, argue that ultimately justice will prevail and people will, if wrongfully prosecuted, be freed. I can then point to the fact that people die in prison after they were railroaded by the prosecution. This does not offend my conservative side, it offends my liberal side. I will also point out that it is extremely rare for an appellate court to overturn a conviction for any reason. There has to be either a clear cut error of some type that is egregious, or the law has to be found unconstitutional. Tell me honestly, would you willing to be a test case for challenging the constitutionality of a law if someone was willing to compensate you liberally for the time you spent incarcerated during the entire process?

I will also point out that, despite years of efforts by some people, no court has ever ruled that juries do not have the power to judge the law. Current precedent holds that the judge can overrule the jury on points of law, but that is not the same as them not judging it at all.

Just because the judge does not have to inform a jury about nullification in jury instructions, as current case law states, that does not mean that defendants should not have the right to argue nullification to the jury themselves. The law is so screwed up that even if a defendant represents himself the court will refuse to let him argue nullification. Is it some sort of breach of professional ethics to allow someone who is not a lawyer to argue nullification, or is an usurpation of a persons right to represent himself?

By the way, I can easily cite numerous right wing judges, including Robert
Bork, who oppose jury nullification. this is not a partisan debate, despite the fact that militia groups have seized on this issue. I could easily point out that these same groups have also seized on free speech as a favorite issue, and I am pretty sure you do not think that is a partisan issue. Lets try to keep this debate on the merits of the issue, on not on the people who are arguing it.

There are no "merits" to this discussion. This discussion fits right in there with the folks who argue that you legally do not have to pay income taxes.

I suspect that this argument is based upon a lack of understanding between the two sides arguing it. Yes, of course it is POSSIBLE for a juror to vote not guilty simply because he or she disagrees with the law of the case, even though the defendant is clearly guilty. But if a juror does that, he or she is disobeying the court's instructions to follow the law and so, to that extent, such action by a juror is NOT LEGAL.

What are you advocating here - that attorneys should be free to argue to juries that they can disregard the law of the case? Sounds to me like you are. Taking partisanship out of it, I call that just plain Whackodom - right or left.

How is it not legal? Can a jury be punished if it collectively decides to set a guilty person free? If so, why wasn't the jury in the OJ Simpson case charges?

I am not advocating that people juries should have a right to ignore the law. I am advocating that they should have a right to judge the law, under advice from the judge.

The Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court advocated for jury nullification, and suggested this instruction to juries.

"You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed."

William C. Goodloe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not see anything in there about ignoring the law. What I see is an instruction to use the facts of the case to determine the law.

You might not like the substance of the argument, but it is not about what you are saying it is. I do not believe you do not have to pay income taxes, yet I believe in nullification. I also know that it is legal, even if the courts hate it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This discussion has resulted to some extent in our talking past each other.

If a trial LAWYER tries to usurp the role of the Judge by "charging" the jury on "the law," and in the process attempts to tell a jury of their ability to perform a "jury nullification," the attorney could be sanctioned.

There is a difference between the contention that no judge is going to "charge" a jury on the self-refuting concept of "jury nullification" and the contention that it is a criminal act for a citizen to tell a jury the same thing before they ever become a jury (like when they are called first to jury duty).

The idea of criminally penalizing a citizen for telling prospective jurors of the concept of jury nullification borders on absurdity. Yes, there may have been some attempts to engage in such a prosecution a couple of (or a few) times. But it seems unlikely that any such case will EVER go to trial.

It is about equally unlikely that any judge will ever give a legal instruction to a jury that amounts to a blatant contradiction of one of the main precepts of the duties of a jury. Jurys don't MAKE the law. Legislators (with the approval of the executive or over the objection of an executive) make the laws. But to tell a juror that he (or she) may NEGATE a law (while at the same time telling them that their duty is to follow the law) is illogical on its face and it's not going to happen. In Dougherty, the Court decision confronted that very dilemma.

Moreover, to compel a juror involuntarily assigned to jury duty to assume the burdens of mini-legislator or judge, as is implicit in the doctrine of nullification, is to put untoward strains on the jury system. It is one thing for a juror to know that the law condemns, but he has a factual power of lenity. To tell him expressly of a nullification prerogative, however, is to inform him, in effect, that it is he who fashions the rule that condemns.

Funny how people argue that juries should not know that they are ultimately responsible for their verdicts, isn't it? They must feel so much better sending someone to jail for life for stealing a candy bar when they believe that it is not their fault, and that they had no choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the cases and their embedded citations spell out is what you challenged George on. A judge instructing the jury on nullification is reversible error. A juror bent on nullification can be removed. A defense based on nullification can be denied. An officer of the court who argues nullification to the jury can be cited. And a jury verdict based on such instruction or argument can be nullified at the court's discretion.

It's don't ask, don't tell for juries as far as nullifying is concerned.

A whackaloon handing out pamphlets telling juries they have a right to nullify? Liability was right. Even if there were an applicable statute it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to charge anyone like this with anything but possibly littering. Why draw attention to something that's only going to gum up the works?

Right...A very apropos comparison.

So, did DADT make it illegal for gays to serve in the military?

Nobody's arguing that jury nullification is a crime.

I hate to disagree with you, but George actually did when he said that it is not legal.

 

[goldcatt]

Right...A very apropos comparison.

So, did DADT make it illegal for gays to serve in the military?

Nobody's arguing that jury nullification is a crime.

I hate to disagree with you, but George actually did when he said that it is not legal.

There is a difference between whether something is lawful and whether it is criminal.