Skip to comments.
Felony Charges for Handing Out Jury Nullification Fliers
Foundation for Economic Freedom ^
| Dec. 3, 2015
| Eugene Volokh
Posted on 12/03/2015 1:28:38 PM PST by Twotone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 last
To: webstersII
P.S. And giving out literature on it is protected by the 1st Amendment.
61
posted on
12/03/2015 6:45:35 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(There's a right to gay marriage in the Constitution but there is no right of an unborn baby to life.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
To: Blood of Tyrants
63
posted on
12/03/2015 6:58:29 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
What statute defines the requirement for an oath for a federal or state juror?
64
posted on
12/03/2015 9:50:57 PM PST
by
Axenolith
(Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
To: Twotone
Keith Eric Wood is being prosecuted for standing outside a Michigan courthouse and handing out a leaflet that discusses jury nullification. Keith Wood should have posted those leaflets on adjacent utility poles. (At night).
65
posted on
12/04/2015 4:43:49 AM PST
by
Does so
(Europeans better start becoming "Illegal Immigrants" to the USA. ==8-O)
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS; VRWCarea51
How sad, to practice something for 35 years and still not get it right.
To: HartleyMBaldwin
Most likely squeaked out an existence selling out the accused that needed a public defender, or sat in a Prosecutor’s office as an assistant and screwed over anyone they came across.
But Given the Peter Principle they may very well have been a Prosecutor for some back woods County in Podunk USA.
67
posted on
12/04/2015 7:26:19 AM PST
by
VRWCarea51
(The original 1998 version)
To: HartleyMBaldwin
I bet hjs/her filed motions with the courts were a real interesting read.
‘I command the court...’
68
posted on
12/04/2015 7:28:25 AM PST
by
VRWCarea51
(The original 1998 version)
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
If you were on a jury 160 years ago for someone on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Law by refusing to return escaped “property” to its “owner”, and it was obvious the accused had in fact done that which he was accused of, would you vote to convict or acquit?
69
posted on
12/04/2015 5:52:32 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson