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

[magellan01]

@Acid_Lamp

Then why have a jury at all?

You seem to know the answer to your own question:

@Acid_Lamp

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.

<snip>

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.

Though “beliefs” and “values” of the time are more part of lawmaking, not prosecution of lawbreakers. If the values of a particular people in a particular time think a law unjust, they can change the law. Lawmaking is the job of the legislative branch.

@Acid_Lamp

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

As Ravenman pointed out, simply repeating this does not make it so. They are not supposed to look at consequences. Sentencing (the consequences) is left to the judge.

[Heyoka13]

@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?

+1

(I’ll bump that up to +2 if the DAs head explodes when your point occurs to him)

[Tilley]

>>As Ravenman pointed out, simply repeating this does not make it so. They are not supposed to look at consequences. Sentencing (the consequences) is left to the judge.<<

While true in most jurisdictions, there are a number of states that have justice systems where sentencing (in jury trials) is done by the juries. Here, obviously, the jury is expected to do more than merely determine facts.

Which raises the oft-debated question: In terms of “systems analysis,” which is the better system? Does the expanded duties and powers of such juries further the democratic foundation of those jurisdictions, merely designed to shield their elected judges from political accountability, and is it fairer to the accused and the community?

(Most such systems are “hybrid,” in that judges remain with some power to override or modify jury sentences in some. I’ve read there are six states which allocate sentencing responsibilities, in some fashion or another.)

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Oakminster

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

Hmmm… You obviously don’t agree with the Libertarian party on this matter, they are supporters of jury nullification as laid out in their platform:

@Libertarian Party Platform

We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

Most libertarian leaning Republicans and conservative groups (Ron Paul and the Cato Institute for example) also support jury nullifcation. But no matter, there are obviously differences between “small l” libertarians and party members. Libertarians, almost by definitinon, have strong individual beliefs.

Anyway, while it is true that a Jury’s duty (heh) is mainly to determine the facts of the case, and the job of determining law is mainly the duty of the judiciary, the right of the jury to acquit, even when the facts of the case clearly indicate guilt is unassailable (due to the double jepordy clause of the 5th amendment) . This de facto right (de facto due to the right to a trial by jury laid out in the 6th amendment) is one of the last bulwarks for the citizenry to protect itself from a tyranical or corrupt government. The understanding that juries can judge both the facts and the law is older than the founding of our country and has been supported numerous times in court. For instance, Chief Justice John Jay speaking to a jury in a unamimous supreme court decision (Georgia vs. Brailstford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)):

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

Another notable example is Alexander Hamilton, arguing before the New York Supreme Court in People vs. Croswell (3 Johns. Cas. 336 (1804)).

In the general distribution of power, in any system of jurisprudence, the cognizance of law belongs to the court, of fact to the jury; that as often as they are not blended, the power of the court is absolute and exclusive. That, in civil cases, it is always so, and may rightfully be so exerted. That, in criminal cases, the law and fact being always blended, the jury, for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, are intrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact.

This was agreed to by chief justice of the court (James Kent, widely known for his authorship of Commentaries on American Law) in his decision:

In every criminal case, upon the plea of not guilty, the jury may, and indeed they must, unless they choose to find a special verdict, take upon themselves the decision of the law, as well as the fact, and bring in a verdict as comprehensive as the issue; because, in every such case, they are charged with the deliverance of the defendant from the crime of which he is accused.
But while the power of the jury is admitted, it is denied that they can rightfully or lawfully exercise it, without compromitting their consciences, and that they are bound implicitly, in all cases to receive the law from the court. The law must, however, have intended, in granting this power to a jury, to grant them a lawful and rightful power, or it would have provided a remedy against the undue exercise of it. The true criterion of a legal power, is its capacity to produce a definitive effect liable neither to censure nor review. And the verdict of not guilty, in a criminal case, is, in every respect, absolutely final. The jury are not liable to punishment, nor the verdict to control.

This case is important as it has been cited by the US Supreme Court in the aforementioned Sparf et al. v. United States.

Another founding father, John Adams, also expressed his opinion on the Juror’s rights to judge the law:

It is not only the trial juror’s 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.

I could go on citing the founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson also wrote about Jury rights and responsibilities in this regard), and US court cases (both the Supreme Court and several circuits of the court of appeals have upheld this right for juries to nullify laws in specific cases many times), but I think I have made my point here. If you truly believe that this is wrong, that juries are not allowed to judge the law and must only judge facts, provide some cites please.

I will come back again in a while an post some examples of Jury nullification that made sense. Sure their are cases, like your Emmett Till case, that was a miscarriage of justice, but in the main jury nullification can be a good thing.

[Rhythmdvl]

@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?

@Heyoka13

+1

(I’ll bump that up to +2 if the DAs head explodes when your point occurs to him)

+3 if this ends up leading to the discovery of the mass of the Higgs boson particle.

(+4 if it doesn’t result in reducing Earth into the size of a pea.)

[Heyoka13]

@Rhythmdvl

+3 if this ends up leading to the discovery of the mass of the Higgs boson particle.

(+4 if it doesn’t result in reducing Earth into the size of a pea.)

I am in the presense of the master.

I am shocked and awed.

Well played, Kemosabi.

[Heyoka13]

Can Mr. Heicklen make a citizens arrest of the DA during the trial?

[Heyoka13]

Would the judge stop the DA during his opening statement and remind the him of his 5th Amendment rights?

[Patch]

@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?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here for the trial of Mr. Heicklen, who was illegally distributing pamphlets on jury nullification in front of the courthouse. Jury nullification is the principle by which a jury can, in opposition to the law and evidence presented, vote according to their conscience and find a defendant not guilty.

…

Oh, crap."

[Heyoka13]

@Heyoka13

Would the judge stop the DA during his opening statement and remind the him of his 5th Amendment rights?

(Off topic, but really funny; I was at a local city council meeting a few years ago, and the city attorney interrupted the council members and reminded them of their 5th Amendment rights during what was, up to that point, a rather mundane zoning discussion.

The meeting became VERY interesting at that point)

[Acid_Lamp]

Since I’m not a lawyer, I’m going to let the cites of the previous posters set precedence, and the legal eagles can quibble about it if they like. It seems clear to me that there is a long history of juries having the power and responsibility to consider each case in the exact manner I have suggested. Leaving the power “to the experts” (paraphrasing) as one poster suggested is probably the worst idea I’ve ever heard. You are presupposing guilt, and basically making the statement that a trial is a mere formality. Though the current system is becoming more aderversarial by the minute, we still have the right to presumed innocence in all matters of the court until convicted. Convicted by a group of regular citizens, who have the charge to consider the individual merits of the case. While drawing bright lines is necessary for drafting laws, juries alone, with perhaps only the supreme court, have the right to interpret the spirit of the law. a power that is significant regardless of the verdict it returns. They in effect are the causation of case law and precedent, not lawmakers.

[Morgenstern]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, * except things that piss us or our agents off will be illegal, * or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Careful between the line reading of the 1st Amendment clearly shows this as illegal.

[manila]

@Oakminster

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

Am reading the wiki link ( and plowing through the numerous wiki sub-links) and at the moment I only have WTF! to say.

I will respond more fully later but initially am thinking that this is a racism sickness rather than an intrinsic fault with jury nullification.

[Captain_Amazing]

@L. G. Butts

I will come back again in a while an post some examples of Jury nullification that made sense. Sure their are cases, like your Emmett Till case, that was a miscarriage of justice, but in the main jury nullification can be a good thing.

John Peter Zenger? Fugitive slave cases?

[robertliguori]

@manila

Am reading the wiki link ( and plowing through the numerous wiki sub-links) and at the moment I only have WTF! to say.

I will respond more fully later but initially am thinking that this is a racism sickness rather than an intrinsic fault with jury nullification.

It seems pretty obvious that jury nullification is a net positive or a net negative solely based on how well the laws, behavior, and morality all currently correlate. Antebellum, helping runaway slaves escape was illegal, and a lot of people did it. Jury nullification; net positive. After the war, there was horrible racism-inspired violence by a lot of people. Jury nullification; net negative.

So, if you believe that there is currently a large body of often-enforced law that is totally out of synch with morality, then you probably are strongly in favor of jury nullification.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@robertliguori

It seems pretty obvious that jury nullification is a net positive or a net negative solely based on how well the laws, behavior, and morality all currently correlate. Antebellum, helping runaway slaves escape was illegal, and a lot of people did it. Jury nullification; net positive. After the war, there was horrible racism-inspired violence by a lot of people. Jury nullification; net negative.

I think racist inspired nullification can be solved by making sure the juries are not lopsided. Twelve white guys who are members of the KKK sitting in judgment of a black guy (or their accused white-guy buddy) is not going to get a good result.

Either force a more even jury pool or force a change of venue and that problem can largely be solved.

[magellan01]

@Acid_Lamp

You are presupposing guilt, and basically making the statement that a trial is a mere formality.

Nonsense. Please point to those statements made by posters in this thread that, in your estimation, “presuppose guilt”.

[Acid_Lamp]

This one.

@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.

The jury returns a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. Until they return a verdict of Guilty, the accused is to be considered innocent in the matter of the case. Guilt and innocence have a more complex meaning then “did the defendant physically engage in the behaviour proscribed by law?” In most cases, that is enough, but in many more complex ones they are also weighing the intent, circumstances, and where allowed previous record or character witness presented by the defense. A person who steals food to eat has physically broken the law, That doesn’t mean that the jury must find them guilty of theft.

Conducting trials in the manner you are advocating reduces the defense’s position to nothing more than either an alibi or a technicality. Considering that the vast majority of cases concerning JN are relevant to controversial laws and issues such a system eliminates all ability to create new case law. It is eliminating the both the jury’s ethical decision making, and preventing the defense from presenting a case for justification. THAT is how it presupposes guilt rather than innocence. It makes it a binary position, with no room for interpretation. That is wrong, and the early framers of our legal system placed power in the hands of the jury to prevent exactly that type of abuse.

[Czarcasm]

If you are predisposed to letting off people for stealing to feed their families, then you should get off your ass and lobby to change the law to reflect that view. Most(not all) of the juries today are made up of those not smart enough to out of that duty, further filtered by lawyers trying to game the system in their favor. These are not the type of people I want going into a courtroom thinking the law is nothing more than a suggested path to follow.

[Shmendrik]

@Whack-a-Mole

I think racist inspired nullification can be solved by making sure the juries are not lopsided. Twelve white guys who are members of the KKK sitting in judgment of a black guy (or their accused white-guy buddy) is not going to get a good result.

Either force a more even jury pool or force a change of venue and that problem can largely be solved.

But one white juror who is a member of the KKK can get his accused white-guy buddy a mistrial.