I’ve been in and around the legal industry for almost 18 years, but this is not an issue I’ve ever dealt with or even really discussed with anyone. For those that are unfamiliar, one definition of jury nullification (this one from Wikipedia) reads as follows:
I’ve heard vaguely over the years that it’s something that is Very Bad to poison a jury with, but I’d never heard of any accusations of discussing it being illegal until today. I [read an article](Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don’t believe he or she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).) about a man who was arrested for handing out pamphlets to prospective jurors in front of a courthouse explaining what jury nullification is.
According to the article:
So my question for lawyers and legal scholars is, can a judge legally and appropriate order someone arrested for this? Is this legitimate jury tampering? And for everyone else, I’m just curious to hear how you react to hearing about this. Do you think it’s justifiable to have someone arrested for this behavior?
Perhaps if the guy identified and targeted specific individuals who had been assigned to juries, maybe that could be considered jury tampering.
But if the guy is just handing stuff out to random people who walk by the building, I really can’t see how that could be considered anything but an exercise of protected free speech.
I’m aware that the subject comes up frequently here, often in the context of the ability of a defendant in trial being able to coax the jury into taking advantage of it.
I did not, however, readily find examples here of people being arrested for spreading the word about it. I thought it was worthy of discussion.
If it’s true, as the arrested man’s attorney claims, that there were no court cases in progress and no juries being seated, then I can’t see how a charge of jury tampering could possibly stick.
His picture in the article is pretty funny though.
I swear there was a SDMB thread about this exact same set of facts a few years ago, I think in New York. I thought the book should be thrown at the guy, but I vaguely recall that he was acquitted or the charges were dropped.
There have been a few high profile cases of this happening before - that is being arrested for handing out pamphlets. Here is one from Denver. Here is one from the NYtimes.
I believe the Fully Informed Jury Association encourages or has pamphlets if others want to participate. Their mission is…well, in their name and referenced in the incident in the OP (which by the way has a broken link). They even have this on their sidebar:
In my opinion, he was at the courthouse for the sole purpose of interfereing with the legal instructions given to jurors on how they should decide the case. Had he written a book or been on TV, speaking to a broad audience, I wouldn’t care. But he was in fact looking to influence jurors by intercepting them as they went in and out of the courthouse, which in my opinion is unfair.
Here is the thread. In that case, there was also the additional fact that he was trying to pass himself off as some type of government official by passing out pamphlets titled, “JURY INFORMATION.”
However, in April 2012, a Federal judge ruled that I am wrong and this guy is free to go.
The question I find really interesting is can he demand a trial in front of a jury to fight his charges; and have his pamphlet read by his jury as part of his case.
That’s interesting…I like it. If he refuses to take a plea and actually goes to trial, how does the judge handle the presentation of the evidence? I wonder if there has ever been a voir dire conducted that specifically questions prospective jurors on their feelings about nullification.
“Keith Wood (pictured left) said he was handing out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association on Nov. 24 while standing on the sidewalks along Elm Street.”
[QUOTE=Asimovian]
I wonder if there has ever been a voir dire conducted that specifically questions prospective jurors on their feelings about nullification.
[/quote]
But by it’s nature that would include informing them of their nullification rights, and everyone in the court would have to be arrested.
