Not to quibble but I specifically stated that it would not be near a courthouse or anywhere else where I would have a reasonable belief that the information I am spreading would go to any of those current situations. If one out of the 1000 cars happens to contain a prospective juror but it is a Wal-mart parking lot we may have a landmark case because there is NO way to reasonably expect that someone in that group of people that it cannot be communicated to is one of those members. By that logic I could not call into a radio show or be a guest and speak about this issue for or against which would violate my first amendment rights provided I did not speak of any current case. I could not post information about it on the web. I would never be convicted in those situations and if I was by spreading the information in an area which I would not intentionally be informing them there would be plenty of room for appeal and it would be a big case.
As far as point number 2. I would never walk into a courtroom with a closed mind. My opinions or beliefs are open to what I see as the facts of the case when they are presented. A judge cannot say this is a fact or that is a fact. He can say this has been proven and advise the jury on the word of the law. I would in no way be violating that law. As far as opinions are concerned ohh I think drugs are bad so I can’t be a juror in the case is just pathetic and not in the spirit of the law and there could never be a trial for a drug case because pretty much EVERYBODY has and opinion about them. As long as my mind isn’t made up when I walk in the door and that I don’t intend to nullify just because I can (which is illegal) I do not break that statue.
Thank you for all your replies and information regarding the process. With the exception of the following.
And as far as kunilou is concerned you have clearly not thoroughly read my arguments or you are trolling as every time you post your criticism what you criticize was indicated in the previous posts.
I did not say it was a law I said it is a relevant aspect of the law.
“although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed”), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Newman, 743 F.Supp. 533, 535 (M.D.Tenn.1990)
Saying I do not condone using nullification for lynching hardly means I condemn their right to use nullification. It just means that it if happened that I was a juror in that kind of case and the facts showed that someone was lynched by the defendant I would find them guilty and if it ended in a hung jury, new trial. Exactly what should happen.
I agree that is one of my rights. As is my power to nullify.
You clearly didn’t read my preface as to how I wouldn’t be doing it in front of a courthouse etc where I would be purposely “communicating with any juror, special master, referee, or arbitrator in a judicial proceeding, other than as part of the proceedings in a case, for the purpose of influencing the official action of such person.”
And lastly
This one was not addressed in a post before you posted your reply but I did reply back to it with my reasoning why this would not apply to my simply knowing about my power to nullify.
Like I said you either clearly did not read the posts before picking your responses or your were trolling. Either way please try to make sure you read before commenting as that was everything you have said.
djinteractive, I think you’ve been around long enough to be aware that accusations of trolling outside of the Pit are not allowed. This is an official warning.
Since it appears that the factual part of your question has been answered, and you seem to be more interested in a debate, I’m going to close this. Further discussion should take place in either Great Debates or the Pit.