Guy arrested for handing out pamphlets on jury nullifaction at courthouse. Guilty of jury tampering?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Once again: he admits that people were fooled into believing he was a court official.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

That is a lot of nonsense. Court clerks work in the courthouse, not outside. Utter nonsense. Look at the pictures. He's a standard crank, not a deputy clerk.

The average juror doesn't know what a court clerk does, looks like or where she/he is supposed to work. He knew this, and took advantage of this.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Once again: he admits that people were fooled into believing he was a court official.

Not that he fooled them, but that they believed it. Anybody who came to that conclusion was wrong and he is under no obligation to disabuse them of that notion as long as what he is trying to do is political speech. He is not claiming to be an official, which is undisputedly illegal. And the answer is, so what? People will believe anything they want. Free speech is not limited to full disclosure of the truth. Politicians are allowed to actually lie. People objecting are invited to provide counter speech.

This guy O'Keefe who goes around actually lying to get interviews which he then edits to make the people being interviewed appear to say things they did not walks free. How odd.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Not that he fooled them, but that they believed it. Anybody who came to that conclusion was wrong and he is under no obligation to disabuse them of that notion as long as what he is trying to do is political speech. He is not claiming to be an official, which is undisputedly illegal. And the answer is, so what?

Again the blind eye. If you have knowledge that people believe you are an official, and you take advantage of that belief, it's no different than saying you are an official.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

This guy O'Keefe who goes around actually lying to get interviews which he then edits to make the people being interviewed appear to say things they did not walks free. How odd.

I seem to recall O'Keefe not walking quite so free after he was busted for impersonating a telephone repairman.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Again the blind eye. If you have knowledge that people believe you are an official, and you take advantage of that belief, it's no different than saying you are an official.

What blind eye?

If you met that guy on the court house steps and thought he was a court official you are the one who is stupid. The guy handing out pamphlets is under no obligation to disabuse you of notions you come to on your own.

It is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at this guy and thinks for about a tenth of a second that he does not work for the court.

*If* he was telling people he worked for the court then fine...that is illegal but I see no evidence of that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Clearly, it's isn't painfully obvious.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

What blind eye?

You are advocating a "blind eye" approach to what is essentially intentional fraud.

If you met that guy on the court house steps and thought he was a court official you are the one who is stupid. The guy handing out pamphlets is under no obligation to disabuse you of notions you come to on your own.

That's not the way law works in this country. If you intend to create an impression with the knowledge that some people are likely to believe a falsehood and you take advantage of that belief to some detriment, you are under an obligation to correct any misperceptions. Communication of falsehoods does not take place only in words.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by acsenray

You are advocating a "blind eye" approach to what is essentially intentional fraud.

That's not the way law works in this country. If you intend to create an impression with the knowledge that some people are likely to believe a falsehood and you take advantage of that belief to some detriment, you are under an obligation to correct any misperceptions. Communication of falsehoods does not take place only in words.

Please spell out where the intentional fraud is here. How is he misleading people intentionally? What in his aspect or message remotely pretends to be an officer of the court?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by acsenray

You are advocating a "blind eye" approach to what is essentially intentional fraud.



That's not the way law works in this country. If you intend to create an impression with the knowledge that some people are likely to believe a falsehood and you take advantage of that belief to some detriment, you are under an obligation to correct any misperceptions. Communication of falsehoods does not take place only in words.

Sort of like that common routine in fiction where the private detective lets the witnesses assume that he is with the police that are on the scene at that time. In the fictional version, the real police detective just shakes his head in disgust and lets the P.I. go. In real life that stunt will get you hauled in.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Please spell out where the intentional fraud is here. How is he misleading people intentionally? What in his aspect or message remotely pretends to be an officer of the court?

We don't know if he's intentionally misleading people. The article doesn't discuss it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Sort of like that common routine in fiction where the private detective lets the witnesses assume that he is with the police that are on the scene at that time. In the fictional version, the real police detective just shakes his head in disgust and lets the P.I. go. In real life that stunt will get you hauled in.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

We don't know if he's intentionally misleading people. The article doesn't discuss it.

No but we have a pretty good guess since the government is not seeking to prosecute him for impersonating an officer of the court.

Whatever the legal standard is seems pretty clear this guy does not measure up to that one. Instead they are going for a dubious jury tampering charge (so not like they aren't already reaching for something, anything to bust him with and stop him).

[Whack-a-Mole]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but figured this is the best place for it.

Yeterday a federal judge ruled that distributing pamphlets about jury nullification—even in front of a courthouse—is not jury tampering. U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood dismissed a 2010 indictment against Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who was accused of violating Title 18, Section 1504, of the U.S. Code...

<snip>

Wood noted that the statute cited by Bharara proscribes written communication aimed at influencing a specific juror's vote in a particular case. By contrast, Heicklen passed out his literature to pedestrians generally, albeit with the hope that some of them might turn out to be jurors. Because the charge was so clearly inappropriate, Wood did not address the First Amendment implications of trying to imprison someone for controversial speech.

SOURCE: http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/20/ju...g-jury-nullifi

[Quartz]

(Deleted) - didn't spot that this was an old thread.

[iltep]

My my my. Aren't we the perfect sheep? Always do as you're told? I hope not. I hope you have the capacity to realize that when a judge instructs a jury, the judge is the one jury tampering. When a judge tells a jury they must find a certain way or that they can not consider points of law or anything that the jurist deems significant to the case at hand, that judge is tampering with the jury's duty to act without prejudice in their decision or conclusions. Who ever gave judges the right to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and basically god in the courtroom? Could it have been judges? How do you feel about a judge's use of contempt of court? This is a flagrant abuse of power by any judge who utilizes it. How is it even remotely fair and just for a judge to accuse, try, find guilty and sentence all in one quick action called contempt of court? Who ever said this is good and proper in any court is nuts and needs their head examined. As for the guy who is not even directing his information directly at jurists but to the general public, what makes him a nut job? Personally I thank him for his efforts to inform the public of the single most powerful tool in their arsenal to effect change in the laws and statutes that are unjust and unfair and un constitutional. Informing people that they can change the law through precedent because they know the law being used to convict someone is unjust should be taught in every school from day one. In fact the way the legal system operates should be more required a curiculum in the schools than anything else. After law should come finance and then history and math. Everyone knows english but grammar these days is atrocious but do you see any improvement on the horizon? Why people like you who are so sure of themselves need to lash out and call a person a nut job conspiracy theorist is just sad. He's a retired chemist who understands that the war on drugs is a lie and a scam perpetrated by our govt to generate revenue and inflate the size of gov't. Do you realize there are more police agencies in this country than in all the other countries combined? We have police agencies within police agencies within more agencies and even more within those. All used to chase down people who would like to use a different drug than alcohol. We have privatized jails now because the gov't is too wasteful in their management and at the same time this privatization may look good, it is very bad. it makes a corporation that has as its duties to its shareholders the need to keep every bed in a jailcell full. Empty beds mean lost revenue to the company and shareholders. Thus you get lobbyists for the jails who want more laws passed that require jailtime. Because of this privatization, the U.S. has more people incarcerated than all other nations combined. Yea USA. Who do you think they will target after they put all the dopers in jail? Speeders? Jay walkers? People who curse in public?

[Bryan Ekers]

Death to paragraph haters!



Just kidding. Fine them only.

[The Second Stone]

Well fuck me. I was 100 percent right on the law in this case. What I didn't expect was that a modern American judge would see all the way through the bullshit and actually find in favor of the right of free speech. Every once in a while my faith in the humanity and the judiciary enjoys a small revival.

Now can we fire the idiotic prosecutor for making this man's life miserable?

Also, would the good professor post his pamphlet and make it public domain so that similar cranks for liberty can repeat his exact actions across this great country?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Well fuck me. I was 100 percent right on the law in this case. What I didn't expect was that a modern American judge would see all the way through the bullshit and actually find in favor of the right of free speech.

Technically the judge did not rule on the free speech aspect at all and merely noted the charge levied against Heicklen was inappropriate.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by iltep

My my my. Aren't we the perfect sheep? Always do as you're told?

Complimentary tip: launching your argument with a snide insult like this one is a great way to ensure that nobody listens to anything you have to say.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Speak for yourself. I've always wanted to be a sheep.

[BigT]

I don't know why people can even debate about this. The judge tells the jurors that they have to follow the law. They don't. This means the judge is lying. Since he is lying, he is wrong. This OP was started about a guy who was trying to mitigate these lies by telling people the truth.

The guy lying is morally wrong. The guy telling the truth is morally right. That's it. It's irrelevant what the jury is supposed to do as long as judges continue lying to juries telling them that they can't do something they can.

And I'm glad that, for once, the law agrees with what is moral.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by BigT

I don't know why people can even debate about this.

Maybe you should try reading the six pages of debate that preceded your post, then- nearly all of which are from people who clearly understand the issue better than you.

[YogSosoth]

They need to go a step further and include information on jury notification on every single briefing of the jurors by the judge

[Acsenray]

They need to subvert the justice system during every trial?

[YogSosoth]

Its a legal right that juries have. Letting people know about it isn't subversion. Not letting people know about it, trying to shut down knowledge and arrest people for promoting it IS subversion

I'll just use the same argument as the anti-nullification people like to use as a response. If its wrong, legislate it and make it illegal.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Also, would the good professor post his pamphlet and make it public domain so that similar cranks for liberty can repeat his exact actions across this great country?

I'm sure you can find it on the website of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

The whole point of this whole FIJA thing seems to be, to make any criminal law -- e.g., that against marijuana possession -- unenforceable, if it is unpopular enough that one might expect to find one person agin' it out of six or twelve randomly chosen. (Also, to make juries feel better about acquitting sympathetic defendants, even where the law in question is noncontroversial.)

Well and good. But one thing I've never been clear on is how FIJA might be expected to affect jury trials in civil suits. I can assure you that any such jury impaneled has been carefully screened by both sides' lawyers, and any potential juror with a detectable pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant bias has been kept out of it. So what difference would FIJA make?