>>Only judges are allowed to influence juries, even if they do so in unconstitutional ways.<<
In the courtroom, but handing out pamphlets on the street is a free speech issue. Now, if what he is saying is false, that is another matter.
I’ve been on two juries, both of which were for trials that lasted roughly a month. In both cases I told my fellow jurors that, regardless of what the judge instructs, each of us can individually decide which way to vote in any way we see fit, even if it’s because you don’t like the guys heairstyle. It’s really only common sense.
I did not know at the time that it was called jury nullification (it was 20 years ago) but I knew enough about law to look up the responsibilities of the individual juror, plus, I saw 12 angry men. ;)
No, it is not. This is no attempt to defraud, slander, defame. It is still free speech even if false.
And even in a case like this -- WHO determines what is political fact, or a historical fact? The history of jury nullification is strong and a certain influence upon the Bill of Rights. Go look up the Trial of William Penn in London.
You are that cavalier with the concept of due process? Liberty weeps.
There was a case some time ago where the jury convicted based on a coin flip. The jury said that since they all agreed on the coin flip, they thought it would be fine. Instead, there was a mistrial and the guy was retried. Good use of tax money there.