# Jury finds man guilty of jury tampering after passing out juror rights pamphlets -- (with a wrinkle) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012 "2017-06-03T16:24:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/21 "2017-06-03T19:14:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > (bolding mine) “Jury pool”, not “jury”. That’s an interesting theory. You’re suggesting that there was no evidence in the record that he intended to influence jurors, only members of the venire, and the mere fact that they later became jurors doesn’t transform his conduct into prohibited territory. Huh. That might be something. What does Michigan law say about the meaning of “juror,” as it’s used in 750.120a? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/22 "2017-06-03T19:17:00Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Thanks for the clarification, **Bricker**. Happy to help. And notice how this rule intersects with your theory: an appeals court could say, “No rational jury could have found that the accused influenced a juror because there was no evidence in the record that says he did; the only evidence in the record relates to influencing the venire.” Depends on how case law interprets “juror.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/23 "2017-06-03T19:21:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Interesting. Thanks. Good stuff. (I don’t want to derail this thread but I would say the question of a “rational jury” seems it might be affected by, “Why did they believe Jane but not John?”) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/24 "2017-06-03T19:32:58Z")
Obviously this turns into a proximity case: how close is close enough? Setting aside the logistical challenges of implementing each of the options below, when does the conduct get specific enough to be prohibited? 1. Publishing a generic article on nullification in the county newspaper. 2. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every resident of the county. 3. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every person notified of potential future jury duty when they’re notified. 4. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every person notified to specifically report for jury duty tomorrow when they’re notified. 5. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every person entering the courthouse during the weeks before and during when the jury is to be empaneled. 6. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every person entering the courthouse during the day the jury is to be empaneled. 7. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every person entering the courtroom for this case during on the day the jury is to be empaneled. 8. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every prospective juror as they enter the voir dire room. 9. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every empaneled juror as they first take their places in the jury box. Case zero is IMO protected speech. IMO case 8 is jury tampering per the MI statute quoted. Where’s the dividing line? Where should it be? How does that change if we substitute “most” or “some” or “a small percentage of” for all those "every"s above? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/25 "2017-06-03T19:42:11Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Obviously this turns into a proximity case: how close is close enough? Setting aside the logistical challenges of implementing each of the options below, when does the conduct get specific enough to be prohibited? > > 1. Publishing a generic article on nullification in the county newspaper. > > … > > 1. Handing out nullification pamphlets to every empaneled juror as they first take their places in the jury box. > > Case zero is IMO protected speech. IMO case 8 is jury tampering per the MI statute quoted. Where’s the dividing line? Where should it be? How does that change if we substitute “most” or “some” or “a small percentage of” for all those "every"s above? It seems to me case #8 is only jury tampering because doing so seems to suggest it should really be considered for this particular case. If it were a standard part of jury instructions then it would not be an issue. IIRC New Hampshire has tried to make jury nullification a thing that is part of jury instructions. It has failed so far but seems to be hanging in there for future attempts. (I hope the distinction I am trying to draw is apparent…if not let me know.) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/26 "2017-06-03T19:43:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s an interesting theory. You’re suggesting that there was no evidence in the record that he intended to influence jurors, only members of the venire, and the mere fact that they later became jurors doesn’t transform his conduct into prohibited territory. > > Huh. > > That might be something. What does Michigan law say about the meaning of “juror,” as it’s used in 750.120a? > [@Bricker](#): > > Happy to help. > > And notice how this rule intersects with your theory: an appeals court could say, “No rational jury could have found that the accused influenced a juror because there was no evidence in the record that says he did; the only evidence in the record relates to influencing the venire.” > > Depends on how case law interprets “juror.” I don’t have access to LexisNexis or anything like that, just Google, so that kind of research is difficult for me, at best. I know that 600.1307a(4) says [ > [@](#): > > For the purposes of this section and sections 1371 to 1376, a person has served as a juror if that person has been paid for jury service. ]([http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(c5a0qcvyt0upg0yp2evwzutn)](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(c5a0qcvyt0upg0yp2evwzutn)))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-1307a)but that’s all I’ve found so far and it doesn’t specifically say it applies to 750.120. I’ve not managed to find any court cases at all tho that define a juror as anything other than someone who is impaneled. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/27 "2017-06-03T19:53:44Z")
If I were on the jury I would acquit. What he did was not by improper means. I hope this has a larger Streisand effect too. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/28 "2017-06-03T19:59:13Z")
Freedom of speech. He should be able to advocate the way he wants. “Jury tampering” should be something like bribing or threatening jurors, not merely speaking to them (even in pamphlet form). If it’s for a specific case, so what? If I were on a jury, my mom told me that she thought the guy shouldn’t be found guilty, would she be guilty of jury tampering? The guy informed them of their rights, and clearly indicated that he wished they would use it here. So what? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/29 "2017-06-03T20:11:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s an interesting theory. You’re suggesting that there was no evidence in the record that he intended to influence jurors, only members of the venire, and the mere fact that they later became jurors doesn’t transform his conduct into prohibited territory. > > Huh. > > That might be something. What does Michigan law say about the meaning of “juror,” as it’s used in 750.120a? He didn’t hand out these fliers at 7-11 on a random day. He went to the courthouse on the day of a specific trial he was interested in to hand them out. It’s pretty clear that his intent was that one of the people who received his flier would be a juror on that case and would be influenced by the flier. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/30 "2017-06-03T20:18:30Z")
> [@treis](#): > > He didn’t hand out these fliers at 7-11 on a random day. He went to the courthouse on the day of a specific trial he was interested in to hand them out. **It’s pretty clear that his intent was that one of the people who received his flier would be a juror on that case and would be influenced by the flier.** Could you clarify what you mean by the bolded sentence? You understand that there were no jurors in the Yoder case at the time Mr. Wood was arrested, right? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/31 "2017-06-03T20:21:49Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You understand that there were no jurors in the Yoder case at the time Mr. Wood was arrested, right? Why does that matter? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/32 "2017-06-03T20:26:31Z")
I think this is a key passage from the article: > [@](#): > > The case has unique First Amendment implications that gives some perspective on free speech limitations; however, Mecosta County Circuit Judge Kimberly Booher tried the case and ruled against the defense arguing much of First Amendment issues before the jury. She also previously defined that a juror includes anyone summoned for jury duty. So, no 1st amendment arguments allowed, and defined a juror as anyone summoned for jury duty. I would oppose both of those actions as errors. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/33 "2017-06-03T20:30:42Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Could you clarify what you mean by the bolded sentence? You understand that there were no jurors in the Yoder case at the time Mr. Wood was arrested, right? There were however people who were destined to become jurors in the Yoder case in the very near future. The influence was fresh and specific at the time those people switched from being prospective jurors to jurors. If one starts from the perspective that nullification is a good thing, then the jury tampering statute is itself a bad thing. The rest of that argument flows from that assumption. if one starts from the assumption that nullification is essentially like Sovereign Citizenness, legaloid fantasy that’s not really part of the system, then injecting it into a jury pool is as conceptually wrong as injecting it into a jury. Whether conceptually wrong rises to legally wrong is another question. It’s important here for us all to be clear on whether we’re individually debating what the Michigan statute is, or what it ought to be. And ref **BigT** in #28, if you’re on a jury and anyone, even your Mom, knows which specific case, you’ve already committed a violation by telling her. She’s certainly committed a violation by talking about the case to you, an empaneled juror. The real debate here is entirely about specific conduct deliberately aimed at a small pool of people who aren’t jurors yet, but some unknown subset of them are about to be jurors. Once the subset is known, doing that specific conduct to those specific people is prohibited full stop. The question is what about before then? How close in time, number, or place is close enough? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/34 "2017-06-03T20:30:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think this is a key passage from the article: > > So, no 1st amendment arguments allowed, and defined a juror as anyone summoned for jury duty. I would oppose both of those actions as errors. “Anyone summoned as a juror” I can…maybe…see. Imagine it is a small courthouse with a small jury pool on any given day. It might not be difficult to sway potential jurors even if you do not know which ones will be on your guy’s jury. This would be harder at large courthouses with huge jury pools (last time I was summoned I think there were 50+ people waiting in the jury pool and this was after a monster blizzard shut most things down in the city…as it happened after a couple hours they shut down too and sent everyone home). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/35 "2017-06-03T20:34:27Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > If one starts from the perspective that nullification is a good thing, then the jury tampering statute is itself a bad thing. Jury tampering statutes are fine. Just not applied to telling people what their rights are. There are plenty of other ways to tamper with a jury that should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/36 "2017-06-03T20:34:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Why does that matter? The reason it matters is because the law is about influencing jurors, not potential jurors. Everyone of voting age is a potential juror; it cannot be illegal to try and influence the thinking of _anyone_. That’s what I’m looking for now, **Bone** , is something that would indicate if that’s supported by statute or precedent. I don’t think it is, tho. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/37 "2017-06-03T20:41:18Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > if one starts from the assumption that nullification is essentially like Sovereign Citizenness, legaloid fantasy that’s not really part of the system, then injecting it into a jury pool is as conceptually wrong as injecting it into a jury. Whether conceptually wrong rises to legally wrong is another question. It definitely is not a “legaloid fantasy”. It is a direct result of two things that are a reality: 1. Juries cannot be punished for a wrong decision 2. If found “not guilty” a defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime Therefore jury nullification is a real thing. More, it has really happened as noted above with Emmett Till and the Fugitive Slave Act being notable examples. So it is not a legal figment. It is an unavoidable possibility given the system we have. One that seems to give attorneys and judges fits. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/38 "2017-06-03T20:51:39Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > There were however people who were destined to become jurors in the Yoder case in the very near future. Is this accurate? There were people who were destined to become _potential_ Yoder jurors, but for all we know every single candidate could have been excused or refused and another jury pool brought in the next day. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > The real debate here is entirely about specific conduct deliberately aimed at a small pool of people who aren’t jurors yet, **but some unknown subset of them are about to be jurors**. Once the subset is known, doing that specific conduct to those specific people is prohibited full stop. The question is what about before then? How close in time, number, or place is close enough? (bolding mine) Again, is it 100% certain that at least 1 person from that day’s jury pool would be impaneled? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/39 "2017-06-03T21:17:13Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The reason it matters is because the law is about influencing jurors, not potential jurors. Everyone of voting age is a potential juror; it cannot be illegal to try and influence the thinking of _anyone_. He wasn’t trying to influence potential jurors. He was trying to influence jurors on that specific case. The fact that he did so by targeting them when they were still potential jurors doesn’t change the underlying intent of his action. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012/40 "2017-06-03T21:33:24Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The ghost of [Emmett Till](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till) says you’re wrong. +1 > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Those saved from the [Fugitive Slave Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Fugitive_slave_law) says you’re wrong. +1 > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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) No. An appeals court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury. An appeals court looks at procedural mistakes. You cannot argue innocence to an appeals court except occasionally in the case of new evidence. Even then, it has to be evidence that for some reason was not discoverable at the time of the first trial, or was kept deliberately hidden. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-after-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets-with-a-wrinkle/788012.md?page=3)