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.
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.
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.
this is what he was handing out:
...oh, the horror!
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. 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. 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.
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.
>>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. ;)
His pamphlet should be entered into evidence, and trial by jury.
The jury can then examine the evidence.
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.
Scuttlebutt from a long ago, dismissed, hung-jury, marijuana smoking case in California.
“It they want to smoke pot, let them.”
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.
Conscientious juuries frighten the heck out of out corrupt LEO/Judiciary complex.
During prohibition, especially in Florida, jurors just plain refused to convict rum runners. This irritated prosecutors so much that they first subverted the right against double jeopardy, but that didn’t work, because they couldn’t get a jury to convict no matter how hard they tried.
So judges hit on the idea of using an injunction against them that was so restrictive they couldn’t conduct business. This worked, because if they violated terms of their injunction, they would immediately be taken before that same judge, who would convict them on the spot for “contempt of court”, which didn’t merit a jury trial. So that was up to one year in jail.
Almost immediately this was corrupted so that there was no way they could *not* violate the injunction, including the use of clearly unconstitutional restrictions.
And even when prohibition ended, these techniques did not. Some are still in use. So while jury nullification might work for a while, a court system that does not care what the public thinks will seek to overcome it.