Simple influence is not enough. The influence must be by argument or persuasion. I would say informing jurors of their powers as jurors is not making an argument or attempting to persuade. “The cafeteria has milk and coffee.” A statement of fact not attempting to argue in favor of or persuade a person to consume milk or coffee.
You seem to be saying that whether it is speech or not is not for the jury to decide. I don’t think the determination if the venire were jurors is sufficient to conclude on that claim. Even if the venire were jurors, which I don’t think they were, as I said above, whether Wood was exercising improper speech is key. Whether what Wood was doing was improper speech is a question of fact for the jury. That was an error by the judge that can be reviewed on appeal.
This is also an answer to (b).
I would go further and say even if Wood knew exactly who the precise jurors were, and gave them flyers that were informational in nature without advocating, arguing, or attempting to persuade a particular outcome, then that would also not be jury tampering. Even if he wrote down in an affidavit prior to traveling to the courthouse that he hopes his information will push the jury one particular direction, if all he is doing is handing out an informational flyer I would acquit.
No. My contention is that you will have violated a possibly unconstitutional statute and I will not have. Even if the statute is constitutional, you will not go to jail unless you collude with the police and prosecution to ensure your own conviction, because it would be almost impossible to prosecute successfully. Nevertheless, you will, in fact, have broken the law, and I will not have. If it doesn’t make sense, get the law changed.
ETA in light of Bone’s post: I am assuming that the content of the article would, if presented directly to an individual empaneled juror on a particular case, count as “argument or persuasion.” I don’t know what standards the courts have used for those terms.
Yay. The fascism of the court system is even worse than I thought. God damn it! It’s called freedom of speech. Good luck finding out I did anything, because it’s clearly not moral to go along with the law on this. I’m going to inherently do the opposite of what I’m told as long as you try to force me you do not have the right to do.
That’s why I support nullification. The entire court system is set up where it takes away the rights of those involved. A judge can throw you in jail for being rude. Jurors have their constitutional rights taken away from them, talking with other people, reading things from the press, etc. It’s government violating the first amendment.
I want the system to break down until they fix these horrible, horrible laws that take away the rights of the citizens. It’s why I do not trust lawyers to be ethical by default, since they are part of this system which set up special laws for the inferior jurors who lose their rights as citizens temporarily just because they are part of the court proceedings.
A U.S. court should be a celebration of our rights, not the abridgment of them.
A law that can’t be enforced is entirely meaningless. It is already broken in its existence.
And getting the law changed is not possible outside of nullifying the hell out of everything, because the entire system is built up around an elite class who is superior. That’s why jurors get the shaft, while lawyers get to knowingly argue what they know isn’t true out of some misplaced duty to something other than justice.
I am not sure. Let us say you know the guy being tried. And you like him. But you dont divulge this, and vote him Not Guilty. Can you be punished if this is found out?
Typically yes, because the typical juror questionnaire would ask if you were acquainted with either party, and those answers are given under the penalty of perjury.
Let us say you know the guy being tried. And you like him. But you dont divulge this, and vote him Not Guilty. Can you be punished if this is found out?