Judge Dismisses Denver D.A.'s Unconstitutional Jury Tampering Charges ( jury nullification )

Reason magazine ^ | Dec. 17, 2015 | Jacob Sullum

[george76]

Mitch Morrissey tried to imprison activists for passing out jury nullification pamphlets.

Last August, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey charged two local activists, Mark Iannicelli and Eric Brandt, with seven felonies each for passing out jury nullification pamphlets at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse. Morrissey continued to pursue those charges even after conceding that such activity is protected by the First Amendment. When I asked Lynn Kimbrough, Morrissey's public information officer, what Iannicelli and Brandt had done that crossed the line from constitutionally protected speech to felonious jury tampering, she refused to say. That's probably because Morrissey had no case, as confirmed yesterday when Denver District Court Judge Kenneth Plotz dismissed the charges against both men, which he concluded violated their First Amendment rights.

...

What happened here is pretty clear: Morrissey abused his office to punish people for speech that offended him. He persisted in that effort even after it became abundantly clear that the charges were unconstitutional, as when a federal judge in Denver ruled that activists have a First Amendment right to do exactly what Iannicelli and Brandt were arrested for doing: passing out literature arguing that jurors have the authority to judge the law as well as the facts ... It would be perceived as a losing battle [by] a first-year law student.

Yet Morrissey is not alone in seeking to imprison people for defending principles he abhors. Last month Michigan activist Keith Wood was arrested for handing out jury nullification literature outside the Mecosta County courthouse. Wood was charged with jury tampering,

[Farmer Dean]

Clearly he needs to be removed from office and disbarred.

[Still Thinking]

He attempted to violate their civil rights under color of authority. He should be in prison, preferably bunking with those he convicted.

[MileHi]

Mitch Morrissey is a scumbag from way back. Remember Cory Vorhis?

[Michael.SF.]

Remember Cory Vorhis?

Why not refresh memories?

[Flick Lives]

Sue the bastard DA.

[RightOnTheBorder]

Morrissey continued to pursue those charges even after conceding that such activity is protected by the First Amendment.

Of course he did. The process is the punishment and it will continue until we change the laws to let scum like this prosecutor suffer personally for their transgressions.

[george76]

Mark Iannicelli and Eric Brandt should file a federal lawsuit against District Attorney Mitch Morrissey for overreaching and abusing his power for arresting and jailing them in a public, free speech zone.

[MileHi]

Should be Voorhis

http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/federal-corruption-and-cover-up-in-the-prosecution-of-cory-voorhis-part-2

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Passing out pamphlets seems protected even though jury nullification is a spreading loony idea typical of our times. Most advocates hear the words and immediately agree all without thinking its consequences through.

[MileHi]

Hope they do

[pierrem15]

Federal or state civil rights charges are in order.

[catnipman]

next step is to bring a federal civil right lawsuit against the DA.

[george76]

Jury nullification allows jurors to acquit defendants because they believe a law is unjust.

[John O]

jury nullification is a spreading loony idea typical of our times.

Why do you say that. Does the jurist not have the right to vote his conscience? And if his conscience says that the law the defendant is being persecuted against is horse hockey shouldn't the jurist be able to say so?

That in a nutshell is jury nullification. We think the law is unconstitutional so we refuse to convict anyone of violating it.

The jury is the ultimate authority in any trial

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Laws are the province of legislation not some nuts “feelings” that a law is unjust. If a law is felt to be “unjust” we have recourse to change it. “Nullifiers” fail to understand they are advocating perjury as jurors swear to follow the judges explanation of the law.

[george76]

Thanks.

[MileHi]

Glad to.

I don’t recall all the nuts and bolts of what happened to agent Voorhis, but the stench of it is why Ritter didn’t run for a second term.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"Nullifiers" fail to understand they are advocating perjury as jurors swear to follow the judges explanation of the law.

What if the judge's explanation is flawed or biased?

[catnipman]

“jury nullification is a spreading loony idea typical of our times”

I think not! If I was on a jury (and I’d lie to get on one if necessary) and the persecutor was persecuting some poor schlub for some BS infraction under some BS law, I’d hold out indefinitely for acquittal. A trial of the two pamphleteers would be the perfect example.