Man arrested for informing prospective jurors about nullification

[handsomeharry]

@Claverhouse

The** Stalin Constitution ** ---- * The Freest in the World ! * — guaranteed a lot of good things.
It was frowned on to insist on them, though.

That’s funny…I heard that it was actually laughed at.

[septimus]

@DrDeth

He posted a bond of 10% of his bail. If he had been able to come up with the whole $150,000.00 yes, he could get that back. But he only posted a bond, which is non-refundable. That’s exactly as the judge figured, effectively fining the dude $15,000. He can not get that back.

I thought the 10% payment always involved a private bail bondsman, no? Can it instead be a fee paid directly to the court?

[Nars_Glinley]

@septimus

I thought the 10% payment always involved a private bail bondsman, no? Can it instead be a fee paid directly to the court?

The fee is for the bondsman to put up his bond which has to have a value at least that of the bail amount. The defendant could have put up $150,000 (if he had it) and then would have gotten it back after appearing in court. That’s why this was such a crappy thing for the judge to do. He set a ridiculously high bail amount knowing that the defendant would have to pay 10% to the bondsman. In essence, it became a fine paid to a private party.

[BigT]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Sure, but accomplishing the same task does not necessarily mean it’s criminal. At some point the link between a seated jury and the speech is so attenuated that there cannot be a crime.

That’s only because it should never be illegal in the first place. Both actions are effectively the same.

There’s no reason that freedom of speech should stop just because the audience is someone on a jury. If the core principle works, then it won’t fail in this instance, either.

Sequestering jurors is basically saying “people won’t make good decisions unless we control what they are allowed to know.”

And, frankly, it’s the reason I support telling people about nullification so dadblasted much. It’s a way of showing these fascistic courts that the system won’t break down just because we trust people to be rational actors. Because no one is going to nullify if they think the person is actually guilty.

[Trinopus]

@BigT

. . . Sequestering jurors is basically saying “people won’t make good decisions unless we control what they are allowed to know.” . . .

Unfortunately, this is the case. Most jurors don’t have law degrees, and need the judge’s instructions in order to come to the proper verdict.

This is why we have rules of evidence, and why we have rules of courtroom conduct. The point is that juries can be swayed by emotion and other extraneous elements, and today’s complicated courtroom rules are to minimize that kind of corruption. It undermines our societal ideal of a rational verdict based on the evidence.

Here in San Diego, some years ago, a guy got a contempt citation for handing out “nullification” leaflets on the courtroom steps. This goes beyond ordinary speech, and was an attempt to corrupt juries. That is as much a threat to our liberty as censorship is.

(I have two very good friends, one a judge, the other a newspaper reporter. It’s fun to hear them arguing about courtroom gag orders! One cites the precedence of the First Amendment, but the other argues the precedence of the Sixth.)

[MandaJo]

@BigT

And, frankly, it’s the reason I support telling people about nullification so dadblasted much. It’s a way of showing these fascistic courts that the system won’t break down just because we trust people to be rational actors. Because no one is going to nullify if they think the person is actually guilty.

Unless, you know, the defendents killed a black person and the jury knows they did but don’t think it should be such a big deal:

In post-trial analyses, blame for the outcome varied. Mamie Till Bradley was criticized for not crying enough on the stand. The jury was noted to have been picked almost exclusively from the hill country section of Tallahatchie County, which, due to its poorer economic make-up, found whites and blacks competing for land and other agrarian opportunities. Unlike the population living closer to the river (and thus closer to Bryant and Milam in Leflore County), who possessed a noblesse oblige toward blacks, according to historian Stephen Whitaker, those in the eastern part of the county were virulent in their racism. The prosecution was criticized for dismissing any potential juror who knew Milam or Bryant, for the fear that such a juror would vote to acquit. Afterward, Whitaker noted that this was a mistake, as anyone who had personally known the defendants usually disliked them.[26][71] One juror voted twice to convict, but on the third discussion, acquiesced and voted with the rest of the jury to acquit.[73] In later interviews, the jurors acknowledged that they knew Bryant and Milam were guilty, but simply did not believe life imprisonment or the death penalty fit punishment for whites who had killed a black man.[74] This is somewhat disputed by later interviews with two jurors who stated as late as 2005 that they believed the defense’s case, that the prosecution had not proven that Till had died, nor that it was his body that was removed from the river.[73]

Admittedly, 2 jurors deny that this was a cse of jury nullification, but I think that’s unlikely. People knew what had happened. They just didn’t think equal protection was fair.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@BigT

Because no one is going to nullify if they think the person is actually guilty.

If the juror votes not guilty because they think the person is not guilty, that’s not nullification; it’s the proper function of the jury. The only reason to nullify is because the juror doesn’t believe the act charged should be criminal.

[DrDeth]

@MandaJo

Unless, you know, the defendents killed a black person and the jury knows they did but don’t think it should be such a big deal:

Admittedly, 2 jurors deny that this was a cse of jury nullification, but I think that’s unlikely. People knew what had happened. They just didn’t think equal protection was fair.

Note that was 1955.

And today there are plenty of Americans who dont think the the death penalty is fit punishment for anyone.

[MandaJo]

@DrDeth

Note that was 1955.

And today there are plenty of Americans who dont think the the death penalty is fit punishment for anyone.

I was responding to the statement that juries could be relied on to only nullify cases when the defendant wasn’t guilty. And I really think it’s optimistic to think that human nature is just universally more enlightened than it was then.

And my larger point is that jury nullification is intensely problematic–it can be used for evil as readily as for good.