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

[Acid_Lamp]

I’m of two minds about the Voir Dire process. While I think It may be a useful tool to weed out crazies and people with unreasonable positions, (like racists, religious nuts etc…) I’m not certain that it should be allowed beyond that simple net. If only given the choice between having it as it is now, and not having it at all and rolling the dice, I’d take the dice in today’s world. YOu have the right to be judged by a jury made from the community, and it should reasonably reflect that. Neither side should be able to load the jury.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Oakminster

Yet you ignore other parts of your own cite, including paragraphs 16-18:

T*he Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895), affirmed the right and duty of the judge to instruct on the law, and since that case the issue has been settled for three-quarters of a century. Justice Harlan’s scholarly opinion traced the history of the rights of juries in criminal cases. He distinguished Brailsford as a civil case and therefore not controlling in criminal trials. Justice Harlan further deprecated that decision, going to the extreme of questioning whether it was in fact reported properly, since he doubted that Chief Justice Jay could ever have held such an opinion even in a civil case. The Justice concluded finally that
17

Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves. Under such a system, the principal function of the judge would be to preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in the law, would determine questions affecting life, liberty, or property according to such legal principles as, in their judgment, were applicable to the particular case being tried. * * *
18

But upon principle, where the matter is not controlled by express constitutional or statutory provisions, it cannot be regarded as the right of counsel to dispute before the jury the law as declared by the court. * * * We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.13
*

:rolleyes:

Was the rolleyes really necessary? Really?

From the Supreme Court case being referenced in what you quoted (Sparf and Hansen v. United States (finding 26)):

The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority; and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established. If this be true, this court should not announce a different rule, unless impelled to do so by reasons so cogent and controlling that they cannot properly be overlooked or disregarded. Some of the members of this court, after much consideration, and upon an extended review of the authorities, are of opinion that the conclusion reached by this court is erroneous, both upon principle and authority. For this reason, and because the question is of great importance in the administration of justice, and also involves human life, we deem it appropriate to state with more fullness than under other circumstances would be necessary the grounds upon which our judgment will rest, looking first to cases determined in the courts of the United States.

I am happy to debate this topic all night, this is one of the few areas where I fully agree with conservatives of the Libertarian stripe. Unfortunately I need to finish what I am doing here, but I’ll come back to this thread later.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

This is turning into a jury nullification debate!

Our esteemed colleague, SDStaff Bricker, has this to say:

@Bricker

Is it legal for juries to ignore the law and substitute their own judgment? Yes, in the sense that there can be no criminal penalty for doing so and no reversal of a jury’s decision to acquit. Once a verdict is delivered, the double jeopardy clause protects the accused from reprosecution even if the jury’s verdict was a result of nullification. And a juror who steadfastly maintains that he simply wasn’t convinced by the evidence cannot be accused of any wrongdoing, no matter how thin his story may be. So while ignoring the law is not what the jury is supposed to do, the practical fact is that jurors cannot be stopped from doing it. In that sense, it’s legal.

To address the OP: I can’t see how the person would be guilty of jury tampering. But I will have to go and read the article carefully.

[suranyi]

@L. G. Butts

Bullshit. I don’t remember reading anywhere in the Constitution about jurors having to swear an oath in order to be a member of a jury. From Wikipedia (I know, Wikipedia is lame, but I am at work and cannot give this debate my full effort):

Whenever I’ve served on a jury, I’ve always had to swear an oath of some kind. This is in California.

I know that debates over jury nullification always creates strong emotions, but is it really that big a deal? There aren’t that many cases where the existance of the law itself is at issue in a criminal proceeding. Mostly drug possession cases, I guess. But those hardly ever go to trial, at least in California.

[Oakminster]

@L. G. Butts

I am happy to debate this topic all night, this is one of the few areas where I fully agree with conservatives of the Libertarian stripe.

Ummm…I am a conservative of the libertarian stripe (small “l” intentional). If you agree, why are you arguing?

[Oakminster]

@suranyi

I know that debates over jury nullification always creates strong emotions, but is it really that big a deal?

The ghost of Emmett Till thinks jury nullification sucks. I’d be willing to bet his mother feels the same way.

[suranyi]

@Oakminster

The ghost of Emmett Till thinks jury nullification sucks. I’d be willing to bet his mother feels the same way.

Indeed, I’m more inclined to think that in real cases jury nullification is used too often, rather than not enough. Cases where jury nullification might be a good thing just don’t come up that often in real jury trials.

[Acid_Lamp]

@suranyi

Whenever I’ve served on a jury, I’ve always had to swear an oath of some kind. This is in California.

I know that debates over jury nullification always creates strong emotions, but is it really that big a deal? There aren’t that many cases where the existance of the law itself is at issue in a criminal proceeding. Mostly drug possession cases, I guess. But those hardly ever go to trial, at least in California.

Why not try it out with a far less controversial topic?

Say we have a case of assault. During the trial the jury is able to watch a security video that clearly demonstrates that the defendant did partake in the fight, and that they were also severely and rather brutally antagonized into it. They decide that the actions of the plaintiff were so beyond socially acceptable that it was a clear case of “He had it coming” and find the defendant not guilty. They COULD turn in a verdict of guilty, and probably* should*. They also know that the judge knows and understands the circumstances. However, it could be that judge’s hands are tied in terms of sentencing. They don’t want the defendant to go to jail, and have decided to skip the whole issue and nullify.

Don’t forget that the whole jury must decide, it isn’t a unilateral decision. That is very rare.

[Oakminster]

@Acid_Lamp

They don’t want the defendant to go to jail, and have decided to skip the whole issue and nullify.

They don’t have to nullify. They can accept his claim of self defense.

[UltraVires]

If not to nullify, then what is the purpose of a jury? Surely the judge or a team of legal experts could determine the outcome of a case far better than 12 laypeople. I always thought that the jury was the last firewall against a tyrannical government: That they can’t throw people in jail until regular citizens of the community agree to do so.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Oakminster

The ghost of Emmett Till thinks jury nullification sucks. I’d be willing to bet his mother feels the same way.

Nullification is a double-edged sword that can be used for good or ill (for instance northerners refused to prosecute abolitionists who harbored runaway slaves which was against the law). We can play dueling anecdotes on this all night.

[Markxxx]

The traditional defintion of jury tampering has been “unduly attempting to influence the make up of a jury or the decision of the jury.”

And in this case he is attempting to influence the jury. But is he unduly? Unduly generally means to excess or in contrary of legal or moral standards.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t come into play really, 'cause no rights are absoute. The obvious example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not protected under the right of free speech.

I think a jury should have the right to nullify a decision. The whole idea of a trial should be justice and getting at the truth. Not one side having a better lawyer than the other, which happens too often.

So the question isn’t really first amendment right of speech, that can be regulated, and he is attemping to influence the jury so he’s bordering on jury tampering.

The real question is the term “unduly” is he attempting to influence it to excess or against, legal or moral standards?

[magellan01]

@Acid_Lamp

The Jury is responsible for the fate of the defendant. As such, they have to consider the consequences of a “guilty” verdict.

I don’t think that’s right at all. They are there to review the facts of the case. Their is a charge that Defendant A broke Law X. Evidence is offered by the prosecution and the defense. The only question the jury is there to answer is "Did Defendant A, in fact,commit an act that is in violation of Law X?. That’s it. Period. The penalty a guilty person might suffer or the intelligence of the law itself is not what they are their to judge.

[Acid_Lamp]

@magellan01

I don’t think that’s right at all. They are there to review the facts of the case. Their is a charge that Defendant A broke Law X. Evidence is offered by the prosecution and the defense. The only question the jury is there to answer is "Did Defendant A, in fact,commit an act that is in violation of Law X?. That’s it. Period. The penalty a guilty person might suffer or the intelligence of the law itself is not what they are their to judge.

Then why have a jury at all? Certainly a simple panel of clerks with a checklist could easily and thoroughly review cases far faster than a jury and a trial. The point of a jury is that the accused must be convicted by a group of his or her fellow citizens. A pool that should represent a reasonable cross section of the community, their beliefs, values, and standards of the time. THEY weight the evidence, the cases argued by the lawyers, and the potential consequences and vote according to their conscience. It was put in place to prevent rubber stamp justice. In the bad old days, magistrates would simply hear a case and decide. All too often that led to corruption, bias, abuse and all sorts of other unsavory miscarriages of justice. The jury places a great big roadblock in the way of such a concentration of power. They weigh everything, not just rubber stamp a case. They must decide if a person is guilty which is not always the same as having broken the law. Only then, having been convicted by the community can they be sentenced according to the law.

[Ravenman]

@Acid_Lamp

Then why have a jury at all? Certainly a simple panel of clerks with a checklist could easily and thoroughly review cases far faster than a jury and a trial.

Because the clerks would presumably work for the government, and undermine the idea that the facts of the case should be examined by an impartial panel.

THEY weight the evidence, the cases argued by the lawyers, and the potential consequences and vote according to their conscience.

I disagree with the last parts about consequences and conscience. As it is, juries generally are not told of the consequences, and matters of conscience (e.g., in which one’s moral or ethical code produces issues of guilt or vengeance that may lead toward a particular verdict regardless of the facts of the case) should be disclosed in voir dire.

I know you feel strongly about this, but simply repeating over and over that juries have a duty to do things that our current legal system doesn’t recognize isn’t exactly a convincing point. For example, repeating that juries should weigh the consequences of a conviction isn’t terribly convincing to me, but if you would provide some evidence of legal systems where that is allowed and present reasons why that system is better for doing so, I’m willing to listen.

[suranyi]

@Acid_Lamp

Why not try it out with a far less controversial topic?

Say we have a case of assault. During the trial the jury is able to watch a security video that clearly demonstrates that the defendant did partake in the fight, and that they were also severely and rather brutally antagonized into it. They decide that the actions of the plaintiff were so beyond socially acceptable that it was a clear case of “He had it coming” and find the defendant not guilty. They COULD turn in a verdict of guilty, and probably* should*. They also know that the judge knows and understands the circumstances. However, it could be that judge’s hands are tied in terms of sentencing. They don’t want the defendant to go to jail, and have decided to skip the whole issue and nullify.

Don’t forget that the whole jury must decide, it isn’t a unilateral decision. That is very rare.

I don’t debate hypotheticals. One can imagine all kinds of strange situations. If it’s not about a reall court case, with real life decisions to be made, I’m not interested.

[Rhythmdvl]

While I disagree that Mr. Heicklen should not be prosecuted, it’s easy to muddy the waters.

In Baltimore (?) there is a grass-roots movement pushing a “don’t snitch” mentality. On its surface it is patently violence-based and intended to intimidate witnesses. However, what if an otherwise clean person (i.e., no dodging the question by adding facts not here, consider the person enamored of gang lifestyle but never joined or participated in anything illegal and earns all his money legitimately) went on an advertising blitz–radio, television, and billboards right outside the courthouse–promoting the idea that community members should not collaborate or cooperate with the police or prosecution of gang-related crimes in the community? The message would be similar to, but careful to avoid a direct quote of the anti-snitch rhetoric.

Would there be any possibility of legal action against him? Should there be?

I’m still on the side of no, but not so sure.

[Kobal2]

I can see how people could see his distributing pamphlets as a way to say “you should do that”, but in practical terms, either the members of the jury know about jury nullification or they don’t.

If they already do, then I don’t really see what harm the pamphlet does. It’s like handing me a pamphlet telling me that eating at McDonald’s is not 100% health-friendly, or that we should stop waging war because war kills people. Well, duh.
If they don’t, then edumafacating them is a net positive, isn’t it ? Although in that case the edumacation process should probably go further than that (I don’t grok juries, FWIW. To me, people who know fuck all about the law, nor about lawyer & rhetorical tactics shouldn’t have an impact on how the law is applied. YMMVW).

[blindboyard]

So, informing a jury of the possibility of jury nullification is tampering with a jury.

So, how is he going to get a trial without the jury being told about jury nullification?

[Peremensoe]

@Whack-a-Mole

Nutjobs have 1st Amendment rights too last I checked.

Indeed. I hope he gets some legal assistance.