Posted on 02/25/2011 10:52:20 AM PST by Second Amendment First
*
Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood there and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience.
That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates the law against jury tampering. He was arraigned on Friday in a somewhat contentious hearing before Judge Kimba M. Wood, who entered a not guilty plea on his behalf when he refused to say how he would plead. During the proceeding, he railed at the judge and the government, and called the indictment “a tissue of lies.”
Mr. Heicklen insists that he never tries to influence specific jurors or cases, and instead gives his brochures to passers-by, hoping that jurors are among them.
But he feels his message must be getting out, or the government would not have brought charges against him.
“If I weren’t having any effect, would they do this?” said Mr. Heicklen, whose former colleagues recall him as a talented and unconventional educator. “You don’t have to be a genius to figure this thing out.”
Prosecutors declined to comment on his case, as did Sabrina Shroff, a lawyer who was assigned to assist Mr. Heicklen. (He is acting as his own lawyer.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No doubt the defendant has taken lessons from the Dear Leader. You don’t like the law just ignore it or do how you FEEL about it!
If he were tried and I were a juror and lacking evidence that he attempted to affect specific outcomes on specific cases, I would nullify these charges.
Jury nullification is a great power against unjust laws, just like state nullification.
If he were tried and I were a juror and lacking evidence that he attempted to affect specific outcomes on specific cases, I would nullify these charges.
***********************************
Agreed. On its face this is a mere thought crime against the Washington government and its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Is that like Presidential nullification of DOMA?
That is not jury tampering.
To inform juries of their constitutional rights is not tampering.
Attempting to influence their vote is. He was not trying to tell them to vote one way or the other on anything.
He’d better win this case.
A jury in New York City recently nullified a charge against a man from out of state who had a handgun in his vehicle. He admitted he had it in his glovebox but had forgot it was in there. He was facing a felony conviction and years in prison. I would have nullified the charge against him also.
Jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws, ie RomneyObamaCare.
I think I saw that guy at the O.J. trial.
It sounds like free speech to me. We see a lot worse speech—seditious, vicious—every day, but no one interferes. Look at Wisconson... or MSNBC.
That’s right! Ultimately legitmate power only comes from the people. That means a jury has the right to nullify the effect of a law by refusing to convict based on the law.
this is what he was handing out:
http://fija.org/download/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf
...oh, the horror!
Yes, jury nullification gives the people (the jury) the ultimate control in a court case. Which is where it belongs.
I encourage FReepers to serve on juries and help take back this country; and be familiar with jury nullification should the need arise.
OJ’s attorney argued nullification based on racial payback.
In the Nannygate matter of 1993, Wood was Bill Clinton's second unsuccessful choice for United States Attorney General.[7] Like Clinton's previous nominee, Zoë Baird, Wood had hired an illegal alien as a nanny; although, unlike Baird, she had paid the required taxes on the employee and had broken no laws. Wood employed the undocumented immigrant at a time when it was legal to do so, before enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made hiring of undocumented workers unlawful.[8] The threat of a repetition of the same controversy quickly led to a withdrawal of Wood from consideration. Janet Reno was later nominated and confirmed for the post.
No, it’s being judged by a jury of your peers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.