Jury finds man guilty of jury tampering after passing out juror rights pamphlets -- (with a wrinkle)

Great Debates
1

Here is the article I read for reference: Jury finds man guilty of jury tampering after passing out juror rights pamphlets

The wrinkle here, and it seems why in this case the man was found guilty, is he was targeting a specific case being heard at the court. That is to say he did not regularly advocate for jury nullification but felt a particular case being heard needed swaying so handed out pamphlets in front of the court house on the day of a particular trial.

I am a little on the fence on this one. (Full disclosure: I am a fan of jury nullification and believe all US citizens should be aware of this right.)

On the one hand this seems to fit the definition of jury tampering. The person was not generally educating the public but trying to educate one small set of the public in the hopes of swaying a particular case. AKA jury tampering.

On the other hand, even if the above is true, does it matter? Handing out pamphlets is free speech and the content is not illegal. Does it matter that he was motivated to start doing that because of a specific case? Would it be ok if he continued to do it so he could say that while a particular case got him interested in doing this he would carry on for other cases he had no interest in?

Opinions?

2

IANAL, but I predict this will be overturned on appeal.

The whole conviction seems to hinge on one person’s testimony that Mr. Wood was asking people if they were there for jury duty, testimony that Mr. Wood says is not accurate.

Remove that, and we have guy handing out pamphlets to random people and I have a hard time believing that that is illegal since the subject matter of the pamphlets does not discuss anything illegal.

3

What I don’t understand is why it was considered jury tampering to hand out leaflets on Juror Rights, but it’s not considered jury tampering to use voir dire to come up with a jury that is likely to decide for your side.

I think every potential juror should get a pamphlet on juror rights before the jury selection process even starts.

Furthermore I think that there should be a small number of “for cause” reasons why a juror is not acceptable, and the first twelve-plus-how-many-alternates potential jurors who don’t have one of those reasons is impaneled.

4

The ghost of Emmett Till says you’re wrong.

5

Those saved from the Fugitive Slave Act says you’re wrong.

6

Can you explain why you believe the appeals court will remove that testimony?

7

Hmmm… did I say I believed that the appeals court will remove that testimony? :dubious:

8

You appeared to be saying that the appeals court would overturn the conviction because if Woods wasn’t targeting potential jurors, his actions wouldn’t have been illegal. That implies that you believe the appeals court would disregard that testimony. If that’s not what you meant, please explain what you did mean.

9

So paragraph breaks mean nothing to you when reading? Each sentence stands alone for a reason.

10

So why do you think it will be overturned?

11

That’s not really how writing stuff works.

12

Not sure how else to read it, separate paragraphs notwithstanding. What other reason do you give for your prediction this will be overturned? Nothing.

13

Actually, that’s exactly how writing stuff works.

However, I concede that the way I composed my post apparently did lead some of you to connect things in a manner I did not intend.

14

Just speaking for myself and not Snowboarder Bo:

IANAL but the testimony is now part of the record. I cannot imagine the appeals court removing it. What they could do, I suppose, is re-evaluate the weight it carries. If it is a he said/she said issue can the appeals court say (in the absence of any other evidence) that one was telling the truth and the other wasn’t? If not they seem to cancel each other out. A jury can certainly rule on who they believe with nothing else but their gut instinct. Will an appeals court do the same? (really asking)

All that said why should it matter?

If the guy wrote an Op/Ed in the Small Town Tattler newspaper that said he felt the accused was not guilty and that jury nullification is a thing is that jury tampering?

If he stood in front of the courthouse wearing a sandwich board that said, “Joe Schmo is innocent! Nullify!” is that jury tampering?

15

IANAL, but I cannot see how this man did anything illegal. If he had been giving the jurors inappropriate material -* “Hey, the Plaintiff is a scumbag, here’s some photos of him having sex with his secretary and also kicking a puppy” *- that would have been tampering for sure, but informing jurors of their legal rights is no tampering.

16

It’s not, and the way you can tell is, nobody read your post in the way you wanted it to be read.

17

Here; let’s start with [the Michigan statute:

](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(n5drplx0mvktfpfgyaazbwb0))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-120a)
Mr. Wood was not willfully attempting to influence the decision of a juror in any case; he was willfully attempting to influence the decision-making process of potential jurors in one case.

(bolding mine) “Jury pool”, not “jury”.

I agree with Whack-a-Mole’s assessment that the disputed witness testimony seems to carry more weight than it should, based on what I know at this time.

18

No, that is exactly how writing works. The fact that I may not have executed it as well as I intended doesn’t change that that’s how writing works.

19

No.

The appeals court does not re-weigh the evidence, or substitute their fact-finding for the trial court’s.

As long as there is sufficient evidence in the record to allow a rational jury to reach the conclusion it did, then the appeals court does not disturb those findings on appeal. And a rational jury is permitted, even in a he-said/she-said case, to credit one witness’ testimony over another.

20

Thanks for the clarification, Bricker.