Man Charged with Felony for Passing out Jury Rights Fliers

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Verviedi**

Fox, so normal BS warning and better safe than sorry.
http://www.donotlink.com/hiw7

MECOSTA COUNTY, Mich. — A Mecosta man is charged with a felony for obstruction of justice and misdemeanor of tampering with a jury for passing out fliers about jury nullification rights on the sidewalk of the Mecosta County courthouse.

Keith Wood, 39, faces these charges after handing out about 50 fliers on Nov. 24, which the Fully Informed Jury Association wrote, that describe juror rights that are typically not given by judges during jury instructions before a trial.

Wood's Attorney Dave Kallman told FOX 17 the charges are "outrageous," especially after Wood posted bond set at $150,000 last Tuesday. Obstruction of justice is a five-year felony with up to $10,000 in fines, and attempting to influence jurors is a one-year misdemeanor with fines up to $1,000.

Wood told FOX 17 he was speechless.

“When he (the Judge) told me the bond, again I was speechless," said Wood. "$150,000 bond for handing out a piece of paper on a public sidewalk? Speechless.”

Wood said he charged $15,000 to his credit card to post bond. Kallman said he will fight for all of Wood's bond to be returned, and called these charges an attack on free speech.

“It’s just a blatant illegal improper use of government power to squelch a person’s Constitutional rights of free speech, that’s what this is,” said Kallman.

"There has to be push-back, and judges and prosecutors and people need to know: you cannot squelch people’s free speech rights and get away with it."

Wood said he was motivated to educate the public on jury rights knowing of an upcoming Mecosta County trial.

"It's not illegal to fully inform jurors, it's just that judges don't do it anymore, " said Wood.

"To me, I just feel like the justice system would be much better off, and we the people would be much better off if jurors were fully informed again."

The pamphlets Wood handed out specifically discuss jurors' right to vote their conscience, also known as jury nullification of law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant, despite evidence, because they either believe the law is immoral or wrongfully applied.

However, since the late 1800's many judges have omitted jury nullification from their jury instructions, though Kallman said it is implied.

“It’s implied, it’s not overt," said Kallman. "This is more overt, and I understand why the judge doesn’t like it okay, but isn’t that part of free speech? You allow speech you don’t like."

Kallman said this is a violation of Constitutional rights including freedom of speech.

“It’s free speech for goodness sake,” said Kallman. “The Judge directly ordered him to be arrested for jury tampering, for tampering with a jury that didn’t exist, now wrap your head around that.”

Back on Nov. 24, Wood said the magistrate, then other court personnel and deputy, came outside three times, asking him to come into the courthouse because the judge wanted to speak with him. Wood said the third time personnel came outside a deputy threatened to call Big Rapids Police to arrest him. At that point, Wood went inside to speak with the judge, but was told he was not being detained.

“She (courthouse personnel) wasn’t being rough but she was kind of corralling me and she was touching my jacket, and so I asked her again, I said, “Am I being detained?” And she goes, ‘No,’” described Wood.

“Judge Jaklevic came out of his chambers, he looked at me, he looked down the hall, I didn’t know who he was looking at, and then he looked back towards me and the deputy and he said, ‘Arrest him for jury tampering,'" said Wood.

FOX 17 called the office of Mecosta County District Judge Peter Jaklevic, also the former county prosecutor; his office declined comment. FOX 17 also called the Mecosta County Prosecutor's Office, and has yet to hear back.

Wood refused to take a plea deal Tuesday morning and his preliminary hearing is set for next Tuesday. He and Kallman want his charges dropped and are deciding whether to pursue a federal lawsuit.

"I truly believe in my heart of hearts I didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t break the law, so they need to drop all of the charges against me," said Wood.

Stay with FOX 17 for this developing case.

**Frazzled**

Sue the gak of the judge and the jurisdiction in federal court.

**Jihadin**

Do believe the guy has struck "payday"

**Frazzled**

maybe. Judges protect the hell out of each other though. Its extremely difficult, but this is egregious.

His first mistake was going with them. Once they said he wasn't being detained he should have turned and left.

**LordofHats**

US courts have regularly ruled that Juries cannot nullify (nullification is under US law, an abdication of the jury's responsibility). I don't think nullification is a crime, someone correct me if this is wrong, but the courts hate it and often rule against it.

Taking that, the guy is actually obstructing justice by telling juries to do something courts do not recognize as valid (maybe his jury will nullify that

).

**Verviedi**

This scenario could play out.
•Guy goes to court, court has to provide nullification flyers as evidence.
•Jury nullifies
•Entire Jury gets sent to court for Contempt of Court
•Repeat until the entire population of the US must take Jury Duty all day.
Or perhaps the courts will get their heads out of their asses.

**CptJake**

Wow. It doesn't sound as if he was even passing the pamphlets out specifically to jurors, let alone a specific jury.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
US courts have regularly ruled that Juries cannot nullify (nullification is under US law, an abdication of the jury's responsibility). I don't think nullification is a crime, someone correct me if this is wrong, but the courts hate it and often rule against it.

Taking that, the guy is actually obstructing justice by telling juries to do something courts do not recognize as valid (maybe his jury will nullify that ).

once juries get into the jury room, they can do what they want. It is not illegal to declare "not guilty"

THATS jury nullification.

Further, he can pass out flyers urging the commission of felonies. Thats Constitutional under the First Amendment which trumps Judge Redneck.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:

THATS jury nullification.

Jury nullification is when a jury knows someone committed a crime and votes not guilty anyway.

Courts don't like it because the jury is not tasked with deciding if the law is valid, only if it is broken. It's not an absurd position. Average everyday citizens are not empowered with the right to decide which laws do and do not apply when and how.

Of course, I find the idea of prosecuting someone for jury nullification kind of ridiculous. How would you ever prove that?

**Frazzled**

Courts don't like it, but thats what juries can do and the courts can't DO gak about it.

**Prestor Jon**

LordofHats wrote:
US courts have regularly ruled that Juries cannot nullify (nullification is under US law, an abdication of the jury's responsibility). I don't think nullification is a crime, someone correct me if this is wrong, but the courts hate it and often rule against it.

Taking that, the guy is actually obstructing justice by telling juries to do something courts do not recognize as valid (maybe his jury will nullify that ).

No he isn't. He isn't telling jurors to do anything he's only passing out flyer that include information on jury nullification. Jury nullification itself is not illegal nor is informing the public about the existence of jury nullification. According tot he article he wasn't targetting members of any particular jury or even jurors, he was handing out flyers on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse to anyone that would take one because he wanted people to be informed prior to an upcoming trial. Knowledge of jury nullification doesn't obstruct justice or taint a jury because it isn't prejudicial, it doesn't pressure jurors to favor either the paintiff or defendent.

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
No he isn't.

I think that's for a jury to decide (the irony on this one is gonna rock

)

**Frazzled**

Please cite the statute of the crime he committed.

**Ouze**

I don't really believe in jury nullification. I think that if people feel the laws are unjust, the correct process is to change the law via their elected representatives.

That being said, I find it a bit hard to swallow that just telling people "you don't really have to find people guilty" is a crime of any kind, let alone a crime with a $150k bail. That feels excessive by any measure. That's way in excess of what an average drug trafficker gets. I wouldn't expect this guy to see any real relief, though - the most I think he can hope for is probably a censure of the judge, and I think even that's a reach, although I did see a case in the same state where a judge was censured for issuing excessive bail - but like, she issued $1 million bail for a home repair scammer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
His first mistake was going with them. Once they said he wasn't being detained he should have turned and left.

Yes, this. There could have been no possible positive outcome for this guy from such a meeting.

**Kilkrazy**

There have a been a few cases of jury nullification in the UK. We call it a perverse verdict. It typically occurs when the jury perceive that the prosecution is unjust, despite the specifics of what the law says.

For example there was a case in the 1980s when a civil servant was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for whistle blowing on some dubious activity. It was an open and shut case on the facts, but the jury took the view that the law should not be used to prevent the public from learning about government officials dabbling in wrong-doing, and brought in a verdict of innocent.

This sort of thing can most easily be prevented by not expecting juries to act as judicial executioners, and not presenting them with cases they are likely to find unjust.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the statute of the crime he committed.

The linked article on the OP states the crime he's charged with.

Apparently people pamphleting court houses has been going on for awhile now, and they keep getting charged with Obstruction and Jury Tampering. This guy apparently got charged for the same thing. This guy too. The logic seems to be "Jury Nullification subverts the function of the courts" therefore "telling jurors they can nullify is obstructing the courts..." except jurors can't be prosecuted for their returning a 'wrong' decision (I checked

)

The quick case law stuff I find on it is actually really weird (my legalese probably just sucks). In United States v Dougherty, SCOTUS basically said "Juries can nullify, but the defense can't say they can do it" which I find bizarre. Then in U.S. v. Krzyske, a jury asked about nullification, Judge said "no such thing", jury said "guilty", and the Appeals court said "Judge was wrong, conviction stands." <

There's no law that says juries can/can't nullify, and the courts don't seem to go after people who do (only people who say they can). Something in that seems backwards.

**Ouze**

As far as the pamphleting goes, I know the last 2 times I went to jury duty someone was handing out jury nullification flyers. The judge in both cases gave an instruction (right before selection began) that we could not consider jury nullification of the charges. As far as I know, the dude was free to continue passing out his flyers.

**Frazzled**

Obstruction? Seriously? Thats like Resisting Arrest.
No way that stands. This screams ACLU.

**Ahtman**

Wasn't To Kill A Mockingbird a type of Jury Nullification as well?

As for this case it feels like we need more specifics to come to a conclusion, such as seeing the fliers. Either he didn't do anything wrong or he was screwing with people at a courthouse.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Wasn't To Kill A Mockingbird a type of Jury Nullification as well?

As for this case it feels like we need more specifics to come to a conclusion, such as seeing the fliers. Either he didn't do anything wrong or he was screwing with people at a courthouse.

No (he lost). A Time to Kill was more like one. The father was very guilty, but the jury rightfully applied the "He Needed Killing Your Honor" rule.

**Kilkrazy**

Is jury nullification a big problem in the US? I mean, are there are stats on the ratio of unexpected verdicts in what look like open and shut cases?

I'm not saying it should be illegal. You couldn't make it illegal without effectively allowing the judge to dictate the verdict.

I am curious why the leaflet people and the judges are so worked up about it.

**Frazzled**

People are always outside courts so thats not unusual. Whats unusual is the judge getting weird.

**Prestor Jon**

Ouze wrote:
As far as the pamphleting goes, I know the last 2 times I went to jury duty someone was handing out jury nullification flyers. The judge in both cases gave an instruction (right before selection began) that we could not consider jury nullification of the charges. As far as I know, the dude was free to continue passing out his flyers.

Judges always want a jury to issue a verdict so that the trial can have a resolution that follows the letter of the law. Just like they don't want a hung jury and will pressure the jury to continue deliberations and review the case again and try very hard to render a verdict. Jury nullification is really just a not guilty verdict that is deliberately contrary to the preponderance of evidence because the jury disagrees with the charges or believes that society can allow the crime to be committed without punishment. Judges don't like juries to set aside the law so they don't like jury nullification but judges can't direct a verdict and juries are free to issue the verdict of their choice without threat of prosecution.

**CptJake**

Ahtman wrote:
Wasn't To Kill A Mockingbird a type of Jury Nullification as well?

As for this case it feels like we need more specifics to come to a conclusion, such as seeing the fliers. Either he didn't do anything wrong or he was screwing with people at a courthouse.

The pamphlet/brochure he was passing out is this one:

http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf

**Ouze**

Yeah I don't really see a problem with that. It seems like a pretty strong first amendment case, assuming it went as described.

**AlexHolker**

Ouze wrote:
I don't really believe in jury nullification. I think that if people feel the laws are unjust, the correct process is to change the law via their elected representatives.

Lawmakers should remove bad laws, and prosecutors should refuse to prosecute violations of bad laws, but if they fail to do so I'm in favour of the jury refusing to be complicit in such a miscarriage of justice.

**Dreadclaw69**

If that is how it went down, and that was the flier handed out to the public, then it looks like the guy has a decent case.

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:
II am curious why the leaflet people and the judges are so worked up about it.

From what I can tell, leaflet people think nullification is a powerful guard for freedom, allowing the people to reject unjust legislation. Courts think it undermines the essence of representative democracy, but have frequently argued that nullification cannot be stopped (and shouldn't). They seem to want to keep it to a minimum, least the entire judicial system break down. Leads to this awkwardness right now, where to achieve that courts tell juries they can't nullify and prosecutors sometimes charge people who tell them they can. "You can do ti, but we're all going to pretend you can't."

It seems unnecessary, given that judges in the US are empowered to throw out a verdict that runs in the face of an obvious conclusion (resulting in a mistrial).

If that is how it went down, and that was the flier handed out to the public, then it looks like the guy has a decent case.

So far I haven't found any articles about people actually being convicted for this. They get brought up on charges and inevitably some appeals judge tosses the case.

**Peregrine**

How exactly CAN you stop jury nullification? If the jury is only allowed to return the verdict that the court wants to hear then why have a jury at all?

As for the proper solution: public execution for the judge who ordered his arrest. That's blatant abuse of power to suppress an unpopular opinion, and a good time to set a precedent that we as a society will not tolerate such abuses. Too bad this will never actually happen.

**Tactical_Spam**

Peregrine wrote:
How exactly CAN you stop jury nullification? If the jury is only allowed to return the verdict that the court wants to hear then why have a jury at all?

As for the proper solution: public execution for the judge who ordered his arrest. That's blatant abuse of power to suppress an unpopular opinion, and a good time to set a precedent that we as a society will not tolerate such abuses. Too bad this will never actually happen.

Can't tell if sarcastic or not, but public execution? That's a stretch.