Skip to comments.Jury finds man guilty of jury tampering after passing out juror rights pamphlets
Posted on 06/07/2017 3:32:03 AM PDT by Mechanicos
On Nov. 24, 2015 Wood, now a father of eight and former pastor, was arrested after passing out about 50 Fully Informed Jury Association fliers on the sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County Courthouse on the day of another trial. The fliers discuss juror rights including those that are debated and often not read by judges in jury instructions: including a juror's right to vote their conscience, or jury nullification. ... Mecosta County Circuit Judge Kimberly Booher tried the case and ruled against the defense arguing much of First Amendment issues before the jury. ... A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox17online.com ...
This needs a well funded, aggressive, appeal. This is more of the tyranny of a partisan judicial system and an uninformed jury.
I’ve seen pamphlets like this. They explain that a juror has more power than the judge lets on. A juror DOES NOT have to obey the so called “rules” that a judge tells them. Most of these black robed thugs think they are the law.
indeed the founders recognized the dangers of tyranny so they built into the system incredibly sophisticated checks & balances - jury nullification is one example and it served its purpose for 120 years until leviathan grew.
Anyone stupid enough to think trial by jury isn’t anything short of a sham has forgotten how OJ Simpson went free after overwhelming evidence proved he was guilty of slitting the throats of two white people
His son did it.
Can we guess what instructions the judge gave this man's jury? Can we guess how intimidated that jury was? Will the judge ever be convicted of jury tampering?
Answers: Tyranical, Absolutely, Never.
We have a real problem with our judiciary...
We have a real problem with our judiciary...
How much power do juries really have?
The brochure in question in Michigan includes a statement from John Adams, who said of jurors, It is not only his right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
Judges generally "hate" such a concept. It detracts from their image, power, authority. And from their "I'm always right view of the law".
This was a threat to the power of the blackrobed bitch on the bench. The judiciary continues to rob US citizens of their rights and freedoms. Make no mistake these judges are vicious tyrants.
Oh, I thought it was a white oppressor. Or perhaps the heinous detective that provided the irrefutable evidence of Simpson’s guilt.
Slightly off topic, I always wondered about the concept of “jury by peers”. No where else in the constitution is “peers” used and words do seem to be important in that document as to be understood by laymen.
Note that it does not say a jury of “citizens”. A peer is someone of equal standing as I understand it.
So, for example, if you’re trying a financial crime, shouldn’t the members comprising a jury have some understanding of finance?
Using actual “peers” might be something that effectively achieves tort reform. People understanding insurance and medicine, for example, might not be so inclined to grant big awards for trivial circumstances or be able to differentiate honest mistakes from bona fide negligence or fraud.
In the American system, peers does mean equals, as opposed to elected officials, judges, or other government employees. That’s why juries are more or less randomly selected.
The root of ‘peers’ is in the Magna Carta.
That runs counter to elected officials (and government employees) being called for jury duty and speaking highly of it as their civic duty. What you are saying is that being elected (or a government employee) makes a person ineligible to serve as a juror, as a matter of law. No further excuse need be given, to get out of jury duty, "I am an elected official" or "I am a government employee."
Can’t speak to local practices, but:
... There are three groups that are exempt from federal jury service:
members of the armed forces on active duty;
members of professional fire and police departments; and
“public officers” of federal, state or local governments, who are actively engaged full-time in the performance of public duties.
Persons employed on a full-time basis in any of these categories are barred from serving on federal juries, even if they desire to do so...
See my tagline.
no, it was OJ’s son from his first wife. history of mental problems, worked as a chef. OJ is guilty, but not of murder
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.