Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted
New York Times ^ | February 25, 2011 | BENJAMIN WEISER

Posted on 02/25/2011 10:52:20 AM PST by Second Amendment First

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last
Only judges are allowed to influence juries, even if they do so in unconstitutional ways.
1 posted on 02/25/2011 10:52:22 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

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!


2 posted on 02/25/2011 10:55:37 AM PST by texson66 (Congress does not draw to its halls those who love liberty. It draws those who love power .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

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.


3 posted on 02/25/2011 10:56:54 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texson66

Jury nullification is a great power against unjust laws, just like state nullification.


4 posted on 02/25/2011 10:57:10 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: texson66

http://fija.org/


5 posted on 02/25/2011 10:58:24 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Sounds like he is a pain in the judges' nether regions and other people in general, but he's not doing anything illegal. Judges would have you believe that they are the law in all aspects of jury deliberations. Jury nullification is a direct threat to their authority.
6 posted on 02/25/2011 11:00:20 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

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.


7 posted on 02/25/2011 11:00:35 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans - Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Is that like Presidential nullification of DOMA?


8 posted on 02/25/2011 11:00:35 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

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.


9 posted on 02/25/2011 11:00:53 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texson66

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.


10 posted on 02/25/2011 11:00:53 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: texson66

Jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws, ie RomneyObamaCare.


11 posted on 02/25/2011 11:01:04 AM PST by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Second Amendment First

I think I saw that guy at the O.J. trial.


13 posted on 02/25/2011 11:01:32 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

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.


14 posted on 02/25/2011 11:01:32 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine (/s, in case you need to ask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texson66

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.


15 posted on 02/25/2011 11:02:26 AM PST by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

this is what he was handing out:

http://fija.org/download/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf

...oh, the horror!


16 posted on 02/25/2011 11:02:27 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

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.


17 posted on 02/25/2011 11:02:31 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

OJ’s attorney argued nullification based on racial payback.


18 posted on 02/25/2011 11:02:59 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Blast from the past:

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.

19 posted on 02/25/2011 11:02:59 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72

No, it’s being judged by a jury of your peers.


20 posted on 02/25/2011 11:03:14 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
“Sounds like he is a pain in the judges’ nether regions and other people in general”
He just sounds like a radical liberal to me. Maybe Obama needs to recruit him to become a community organizer.
21 posted on 02/25/2011 11:03:39 AM PST by Nitehawk0325 (I have the right to remain silent, but I lack the ability...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Yes. As I recall she had a servant and didn't pay SS taxes on her wages.

Some lawyer, huh?

22 posted on 02/25/2011 11:04:20 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Bingo!


23 posted on 02/25/2011 11:04:27 AM PST by BilLies (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Nullification is a valid concept, like other things as our voluntary income tax structure or commerce clause or... Our activist friend shall get time to discuss such matters in a shiny new federal institution with like minded peoples.
24 posted on 02/25/2011 11:05:46 AM PST by mmercier (despite all your rage, you are just a rat in a cage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Sounds like he is a pain in the judges' nether regions and other people in general, but he's not doing anything illegal. Judges would have you believe that they are the law in all aspects of jury deliberations. Jury nullification is a direct threat to their authority.

Bingo!

25 posted on 02/25/2011 11:05:49 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: texson66

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ....(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction....”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has....”unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”


26 posted on 02/25/2011 11:06:15 AM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Judges “instructing” juries should be illegal. Advise, yes, but instruct, no.


27 posted on 02/25/2011 11:06:44 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: texson66

Actually, jury nullification goes back to the beginnings of this nation


28 posted on 02/25/2011 11:06:57 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine (Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Another moron government action.

The publicity over this will destroy citizen confidence in the Just Us system far more than this guy's pamphlets, and he'll beat the rap with twelve jurors nullifying instead of one.

29 posted on 02/25/2011 11:09:18 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

No that was Lainie Guinier.

However Wood is of kindred spirit


30 posted on 02/25/2011 11:09:29 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine (Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

>>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. ;)


31 posted on 02/25/2011 11:10:19 AM PST by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Same here.

In my opinion, jury tampering is only a valid charge if he handed out the pamphlets only to specific juror(s) for purposes of influencing the verdict in specific case(s).


32 posted on 02/25/2011 11:10:19 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Excellent quotes. Thanks.


33 posted on 02/25/2011 11:10:29 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AU72

No.


34 posted on 02/25/2011 11:11:19 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: texson66
A jury of peers is a check against judicial tyranny.
35 posted on 02/25/2011 11:12:46 AM PST by Crim (The Obama Doctrine : A doctrine based on complete ignorance,applied with extreme incompetence..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

I’m wondering how the prosecution is going to make its case, dancing around the offense he is alleged to have committed.


36 posted on 02/25/2011 11:13:52 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it -Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Even then it is covered by the First Amendment. Why? It’s not germane to the facts of the specific case. It’s no different then telling jurors that 2+2 is 4.


37 posted on 02/25/2011 11:14:16 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

His pamphlet should be entered into evidence, and trial by jury.

The jury can then examine the evidence.


38 posted on 02/25/2011 11:16:10 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

That will be interesting for sure.


39 posted on 02/25/2011 11:18:02 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Now, if what he is saying is false, that is another matter.

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.

40 posted on 02/25/2011 11:18:40 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
But federal prosecutors

What are their names? Why did they do this unconscionable act?

Free Speech is "jury tampering"?

These SOB's can't even get an indictment against Mafia gangsters who really are doing that, and they go after a decent man on the street?

Despicable. Tell us who they are so we can heap shame on them.

41 posted on 02/25/2011 11:18:52 AM PST by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Scuttlebutt from a long ago, dismissed, hung-jury, marijuana smoking case in California.

“It they want to smoke pot, let them.”


42 posted on 02/25/2011 11:19:05 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

It’s exclusion should be reason for appeal, I would think.


43 posted on 02/25/2011 11:20:23 AM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Just my opinion. This guy is doing the work the judges ought to be doing by informing the public of their rights and responsibilities as jurors. Any judge that does not tell the jurors of their constitutional rights as jurors is in breach of his/her oath of office and should not be allowed on the bench.

When one is asked a question and the answer does not include the "whole truth" re critical information to make an informed decision, is that lying? When I was a kid, my dad thought so.

44 posted on 02/25/2011 11:22:34 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf
I believe nullification only applies to GRAND juries, I.E. Federal and State cases.
You are always free to render your vote as you see fit, without fear of prosocution or prosecution what ever the court.
45 posted on 02/25/2011 11:24:48 AM PST by enraged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Good point.


46 posted on 02/25/2011 11:24:54 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Conscientious juuries frighten the heck out of out corrupt LEO/Judiciary complex.


47 posted on 02/25/2011 11:24:54 AM PST by Seruzawa (What's Democrat's legacy? Almost 1/2 million dead US soldiers and collapsed cities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I’d be interested in knowing what, specifically, he was indicted for. What’s the actual law he is charged with breaking?


48 posted on 02/25/2011 11:25:30 AM PST by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa

This is clearly a very conscientious man. A true hero.

They’ve been harassing him, too, evidently.


49 posted on 02/25/2011 11:27:13 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: texson66

Jury nullification goes way back in this land, famously in colonial times when it was used to protect freedom of speech, later in prosecution of the Fugitive Slave Act and during Prohibition. Unfortunately, it was also abused during the Jim Crow days, exonerating obviously guilty whites of crimes against blacks. You take the bad with the good.

The power is absolute and constitutional, upheld multiple times. However, its application has been eroded by later decisions. By the late 1800s judges didn’t have to inform the jury of their power, and by the 1960s they were allowed to prevent the jury from being told in the courtroom that they had this power at all (a judge will declare a mistrial if the defense tries). This guy was simply trying to inform potential jury members of their legal power and their rights as citizens. Consider it Miranda for juries.

“It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision ... you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy” — John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States


50 posted on 02/25/2011 11:29:40 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson