But this ins’t a jury nullification case, it’s a first amendment case. He has no idea if any of the people he’s giving pamphlets to is on a jury.
I don't think that can be determined until the case is heard and we learn exactly what is meant by "jury tampering", what the law actually says, what the individual did and why that supposedly violates the law. I suspect this may just be a case of prosecutorial misconduct, but I don't know that for a fact. It could also be that jury tampering is so broadly defined by the law that it conflicts with First Amendment rights, and may merit nulification.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a number of separate but related thoughts about the pursuit of justice. I think that's healthy and I have learned quite a bit myself reading all the posts.