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.

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

Not at all sarcastic. Abuse of power should have consequences, especially when the person abusing their power has as much power over innocent citizens as a judge.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Not at all sarcastic. Abuse of power should have consequences, especially when the person abusing their power has as much power over innocent citizens as a judge.

But public execution? I agree that we need to punish the guy, but we step into murky waters when we do that kind of stuff. I would put him on trial

Jokes aside, I would suggest a very public punishment so we know that this guy is bad news bears and so he learns what he did was wrong

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 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.

I was thinking more of a wet willie and forced watching of two hours of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

 Frazzled wrote:
I was thinking more of a wet willie and forced watching of two hours of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

Don't you forget that so-called "cruel and unusual" punishment isn't allowed?

Agreed that some justice should be meted out though. Not only is the "obstruction of justice" charge ridiculous, but is a judge actually supposed to order impromptu arrests - outside his court room no less?

You're right. that could be argued as a crime against humanity.

Judges have some leeway to issue warrants for matters before the court and other purposes. They can't get a burr in their bonnet and decide to issue an arrest warrant for the governor because they are bored, for example. They are not nearly that powerful.

They are more like the Architect. MiniDog in the courthouse, not so much outside of it.

Having read more about the issue and giving it thought, I think that the charges are justifiable.

While the pamphlets may not have advocated a specific case or law, they were advocating that a jury decide a case based on their conscience rather than the law. The only person who should be instructing the jury is the judge. Anything more or less than that puts at risk the jury's presumed impartiality and thus damages the integrity of the trial and the verdict.

Court house steps are not the place to advocate this matter, and doing so puts at risk a jurors impartiality.

 LordofHats wrote:
Having read more about the issue and giving it thought, I think that the charges are justifiable.

While the pamphlets may not have advocated a specific case or law, they were advocating that a jury decide a case based on their conscience rather than the law. The only person who should be instructing the jury is the judge. Anything more or less than that puts at risk the jury's presumed impartiality and thus damages the integrity of the trial and the verdict.

Court house steps are not the place to advocate this matter, and doing so puts at risk a jurors impartiality.

I really disagree. He didn't 'instruct' a jury. Didn't even target jurors.

 CptJake wrote:
I really disagree. He didn't 'instruct' a jury. Didn't even target jurors.

At a court house there will be jurors (potential or present). Whether they were targeting is beside the point.

And yes. Giving someone a piece of paper that says "you can judge a case X way" is tantamount to telling someone how to judge a case. It's innately reckless, as for all the pamphleteer knows, someone to took a flier is about to walk inside and deliberate. Receiving that flier immediately throws the juror's impartiality into doubt, and the impartiality of a juror is integral to their role.

I don't think there should be any law against jury nullification (any law would be pointless anyway, how would you ever prove it?). I don't think there should be any law for jury nullification either. The law should not be put in a place where 12 random citizens are given free reign to judge it's validity, nor should criminal cases become about the law rather than the evidence for and against the defendant. It's a tight rope issue, where swinging too far in one direction could have disastrous consequences.

To that end (among others) is why we often sequester jurors. To protect their impartiality from being influenced. To allow advocacy of any kind on court house steps flies in the face of that presumption.

So reckless speech needs to be curbed and punished by the gov't.

Got it.

Had he burst into a sequestered jury and passed them out you may have a point.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

 CptJake wrote:
So reckless speech needs to be curbed and punished by the gov't.

Are you allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?

Reckless speech already is curbed and punished by the government

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So reckless speech needs to be curbed and punished by the gov't.

Are you allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?

Reckless speech already is curbed and punished by the government

Ah, so this would have caused trampling deaths?

At what point are you happy with the gov't calling passing out fliers which don't even advocate illegal action 'reckless' and therefore worthy of punishment?

 CptJake wrote:


Ah, so this would have caused trampling deaths?

Speech need not cause deaths to be reckless. I imagine different states have different laws on what constitutes 'inciting to riot.' I just checked my own state (Kansas), and a riot need not occur for one to be charged with incitement. Heck, rioting is a misdemeanor in Kansas. Incitement is a felony XD

At what point are you happy with the gov't calling passing out fliers which don't even advocate illegal action 'reckless' and therefore worthy of punishment?

I wouldn't consider what was being advocated relevant, merely that something that could effect a juror's decision or impartiality was being advocated. As too punishment, honestly haven't put any thought yet into what appropriate punishment would look like for this Hard jail time on first glance seems absurd.

 CptJake wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Having read more about the issue and giving it thought, I think that the charges are justifiable.

While the pamphlets may not have advocated a specific case or law, they were advocating that a jury decide a case based on their conscience rather than the law. The only person who should be instructing the jury is the judge. Anything more or less than that puts at risk the jury's presumed impartiality and thus damages the integrity of the trial and the verdict.

Court house steps are not the place to advocate this matter, and doing so puts at risk a jurors impartiality.

I really disagree. He didn't 'instruct' a jury. Didn't even target jurors.

Jurors don't exactly wear giant hats labeled "DECIDERS OF FATE"(totally should).

He's at a courthouse.
What do you find at courthouses?
Lawyers, judges, and juries.

Ballifs get no respect

 LordofHats wrote:
Ballifs get no respect

Except on Night Court.

On topic: Nobody is being harmed by the flyers that are being passed out. There is no aggrieved party that is being damaged in some way by telling jurors that if they all really want to find the defendant "Not Guilty" that they can without fear of reprisal. The law gives juries the power to render a general verdict of their choosing without any undue direction or influence from anyone else, judges included. Juries can decide guilty, not guilty or be a hung jury and not make a decision at all.

Jury nullification isn't obstructing anything and it's silly to argue that nullification lets juries take the law into their own hands because that's precisely why we have juries. We want people making the decisions, we set up the system to make it easier for guilty people to avoid conviction so that it's harder for innocent people to be found guilty.

Everybody thought OJ was guilty but the jury didn't. Nobody thought that was jury nullification but it's the same thing, prosecution has a mountain of evidence that they believe proves their case beyone a doubt, jury disagree, votes not guilty.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The law gives juries the power to render a general verdict of their choosing without any undue direction or influence from anyone else, judges included.

That's my point. This issue isn't even really about jury nullification. It's about whether pamphleting a place where jurors are assuredly present with pamphlets about law, rights, being a juror, or anything really that could effect their decision is proper.

In a way, the appearance of impartiality is even more important than impartiality itself. Only fools expect anyone to be completely free of bias, but anything that presents an obvious bias to an observer innately damages the image of impartiality. It's a kind of damage juries and jurors can't afford, as we rely on their impartiality to give validity to the verdict they hand down.

If someone wants to advocate jury nullification, I say let them. Just not in front of the court house where jurors could literally be walking in to start deliberating..

 LordofHats wrote:
Having read more about the issue and giving it thought, I think that the charges are justifiable.

While the pamphlets may not have advocated a specific case or law, they were advocating that a jury decide a case based on their conscience rather than the law. The only person who should be instructing the jury is the judge. Anything more or less than that puts at risk the jury's presumed impartiality and thus damages the integrity of the trial and the verdict.

Court house steps are not the place to advocate this matter, and doing so puts at risk a jurors impartiality.

Good for you. Every appellate court in the land thinks you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And yes. Giving someone a piece of paper that says "you can judge a case X way" is tantamount to telling someone how to judge a case.

Thats an interesting perspective. However a jury charge is done while under oath and has legal force. A handbill has never been cited to have any imprimatur of such, ever.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The law gives juries the power to render a general verdict of their choosing without any undue direction or influence from anyone else, judges included.

That's my point. This issue isn't even really about jury nullification. It's about whether pamphleting a place where jurors are assuredly present with pamphlets about law, rights, being a juror, or anything really that could effect their decision is proper.

In a way, the appearance of impartiality is even more important than impartiality itself. Only fools expect anyone to be completely free of bias, but anything that presents an obvious bias to an observer innately damages the image of impartiality. It's a kind of damage juries and jurors can't afford, as we rely on their impartiality to give validity to the verdict they hand down.

If someone wants to advocate jury nullification, I say let them. Just not in front of the court house where jurors could literally be walking in to start deliberating..

I disagree that it influences the jury. The jury already knows they can render 3 possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty and unable to decide/hung jury. The pamphlets just remind jurors that any of those 3 outcomes is always possible and jurors can never be punished for issuing a "wrong" verdict.

If a jury thinks a defendant probably committed the crime but the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt the jury can issue a not guilty verdict. If the jury believes the defendent is guilty but doesn't believe the defendent should be punished the jury can issue a not guilty verdict. If the jury belives the defendent is innocent of the alleged crime the jury can issue a not guilty verdict. Those options exist for the jury regardless of whether or not pamphlets get passed out on the sidewalk so the existence of the pamphlets changes nothing. Juries still have to deliberate and reach a consensus or an insoluble deadlock.

Informing 12 jurors that they can render a not guilty verdict even if the defendent appears to be guilty doesn't change the evidence provided at trial and the jury still had to deliberate and reach a consensus. The process remains unchanged so there is no obstruction of it. Knowledge of a possible option doesn't pressure people to choose it so there's not tampering because jurors aren't being influenced or pushed to reach a specific verdict.

Reckless speech already is curbed and punished by the government

No it is not. You have conflated the wrong things. This dramatically overused "shouting fire in a theater" scenario would be illegal as its immediate and reckless meant to cause immediate harm to an immediate group of people.

Reckless speech is NOT punished by the government. You're misplacing college campuses with the government.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

I agree, if all he did was pass out a flier that informed people on Jury rights and he offered no opinion to sway a jury then, he did nothing wrong. It is Fox so who knows what is missing from this press release.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I disagree that it influences the jury.

Whether it doesn't isn't what matters. Whether it can is. I'd argue this thread is case and point that it could. More than 13 posters have commented in this thread thus far, and I can count at least 2 different positions on jury nullification (more, if I wanted to be liberal about it). Giving someone a pamphlet right at the court steps can potentially distract them from the merits of the case and send them off on a tertiary internal debate about whether or not the law is stupid. Regardless of how we feel about nullification in principal, that is influence.

The jury already knows they can render 3 possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty and unable to decide/hung jury.

Given all the reading, I don't think they do XD Hell, before this thread the only knowledge I had about jury nullification was from reruns of Law and Order

The process remains unchanged so there is no obstruction of it. Knowledge of a possible option doesn't pressure people to choose it so there's not tampering because jurors aren't being influenced or pushed to reach a specific verdict.

I'd argue (but I'm sure we'll disagree), that mentioning something right before a decision is made is potentially influential. It's why salesmen mention upgrades and packages as you're signing paperwork. The hope that you will do something in the short term that in the long term you might otherwise not do.

Every appellate court in the land thinks you're wrong.

The appellate courts can't make up their minds They uphold the right to general verdict, but you don't have to look far to find constant dissent on the issue of jury nullification. Ostensibly, there is no 'right' to Jury Nullification. Nullification, and the ability to do so, is a by product of the juror's immunity to prosecution (barring misconduct) and the protection against double jeopardy. Depending on how you look at it, courts have purposely left precedent on jury nullification vague (because it can do good things), and/or have been unable to agree on whether it's right or wrong. Not that the later would really matter outside of academics. I don't see any practical law that could be made concerning the issue.

Reckless speech is NOT punished by the government.

It patently is. What is at odds here is not whether reckless speech is punishable, but rather what constitutes reckless speech (too which we probably won't come to agreement )

His name is attached felony arrest now so no matter how this turns out his life is over. Even if the judge loses this one, the judge has already won. I can get where he's coming from kinda but you really shouldn't go poking the bear.

he appellate courts can't make up their minds They uphold the right to general verdict, but you don't have to look far to find constant dissent on the issue of jury nullification. Ostensibly, there is no 'right' to Jury Nullification. Nullification, and the ability to do so, is a by product of the juror's immunity to prosecution (barring misconduct) and the protection against double jeopardy. Depending on how you look at it, courts have purposely left precedent on jury nullification vague (because it can do good things), and/or have been unable to agree on whether it's right or wrong. Not that the later would really matter outside of academics. I don't see any practical law that could be made concerning the issue.

Please cite one case ONE CASE affirmed on appeal supporting your argument that handing out handbills supporting jury nullification is violative of any law outside of littering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
His name is attached felony arrest now so no matter how this turns out his life is over. Even if the judge loses this one, the judge has already won. I can get where he's coming from kinda but you really shouldn't go poking the bear.

Good point. Lawsuit time.

Well, there is a famous case where it was ruled that some guy (i think this was during WWII) was arrested for distrubuting material on how to avoid the draft. The courts decided with the government, and he went to jail. So, in matters of compelling interest, the government can restrict rights assuming they go through due-process. The question is whether or not there is the compelling interest.

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite one case ONE CASE affirmed on appeal supporting your argument that handing out handbills supporting jury nullification is violative of any law outside of littering.

I thought you were referring to nullification.

I've gone through at least two dozen articles, and none of them ever mentioned anyone being convicted of anything (or fined or told to do community service, w/e). I'm unaware of anyone whose actually been convicted for this and I've never once said anyone was (opposite in fact). My thoughts on the matter are my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, there is a famous case where it was ruled that some guy (i think this was during WWII) was arrested for distrubuting material on how to avoid the draft. The courts decided with the government, and he went to jail. So, in matters of compelling interest, the government can restrict rights assuming they go through due-process. The question is whether or not there is the compelling interest.

I think that's a bit different, as draft dodging is outright against the law*. It doesn't matter where or how you encourage it.

*EDIT: Did a quick check, and consoling draft 'evasion' has been illegal in the United States since WWI.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite one case ONE CASE affirmed on appeal supporting your argument that handing out handbills supporting jury nullification is violative of any law outside of littering.

I thought you were referring to nullification.

I've gone through at least two dozen articles, and none of them ever mentioned anyone being convicted of anything (or fined or told to do community service, w/e). I'm unaware of anyone whose actually been convicted for this and I've never once said anyone was (opposite in fact). My thoughts on the matter are my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, there is a famous case where it was ruled that some guy (i think this was during WWII) was arrested for distrubuting material on how to avoid the draft. The courts decided with the government, and he went to jail. So, in matters of compelling interest, the government can restrict rights assuming they go through due-process. The question is whether or not there is the compelling interest.

I think that's a bit different, as draft dodging is outright against the law*. It doesn't matter where or how you encourage it.

*EDIT: Did a quick check, and consoling draft 'evasion' has been illegal in the United States since WWI.

Indeed thats my point. First Amendment speech concerning juries, even jury nullification is not illegal. I can stand on the courthouse steps and advocate secession, treason, the rights of cats owners, any sort of abominable speech and avocation of illegal activities, but its still legal to speak about them.

Basically, the courts are seeing the giving of the information as

"Hey, this guy is guilty as sin, but if you were on the jury you could declare him innocent anyway and no one could stop you *nudge*"

Which is arguably obstructing justice. However, I don't think this is what the guy was doing. But that's likely why the court charged him.

That has never been sustained in higher court.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I disagree that it influences the jury.

Whether it doesn't isn't what matters. Whether it can is. I'd argue this thread is case and point that it could. More than 13 posters have commented in this thread thus far, and I can count at least 2 different positions on jury nullification (more, if I wanted to be liberal about it). Giving someone a pamphlet right at the court steps can potentially distract them from the merits of the case and send them off on a tertiary internal debate about whether or not the law is stupid. Regardless of how we feel about nullification in principal, that is influence.

The jury already knows they can render 3 possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty and unable to decide/hung jury.

Given all the reading, I don't think they do XD Hell, before this thread the only knowledge I had about jury nullification was from reruns of Law and Order

The process remains unchanged so there is no obstruction of it. Knowledge of a possible option doesn't pressure people to choose it so there's not tampering because jurors aren't being influenced or pushed to reach a specific verdict.

I'd argue (but I'm sure we'll disagree), that mentioning something right before a decision is made is potentially influential. It's why salesmen mention upgrades and packages as you're signing paperwork. The hope that you will do something in the short term that in the long term you might otherwise not do.

I don't disagree with your point about sales staff trying to influence people at checkout and that the flyers could/would plant the notion of jury nullification in a juror's mind by being read.

I think those points are lessened by the fact that in order to commit jury nullification you need a "not guilty" verdict which requires all 12 jurors being in agreement. If the pamphlet was, by itself, persuasive enough to convince a juror to be in favor of a jury nullification not guilty verdict that would only result in a hung jury. Plus, before becoming a hung jury the other 11 jurors would be trying to convince the nullification hold out to agree with them. They'd have bench instruction to keep deliberating, access to review all of the evidence, testimony and arguments presented during trial again too.

I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the pamphlet is capable of instilling such a fervent belief for jury nullification in a juror or jurors that it would be the single driving force behind their chosen verdict. The case has to be tried first, then deliberations held with no guarantee that jury nullification will be seriously considered by anyone. Knowledge of jury nullification can allow you to vote not guilty even when you know the defendant is guilty but knowledge of jury nullification can't instill the desire to let the defendant off in the first place.

 Deadshot wrote:
Basically, the courts are seeing the giving of the information as

"Hey, this guy is guilty as sin, but if you were on the jury you could declare him innocent anyway and no one could stop you *nudge*"

Which is arguably obstructing justice. However, I don't think this is what the guy was doing. But that's likely why the court charged him.

Guilty of what, is the question. For example, there have been dozens of cases where a teenager has been charged with distributing pornography of themselves. A juror refusing to find such a teenager guilty despite believing they did what they are accused of is not obstruction of justice, because finding them guilty is clearly unjust and violates the spirit of the law.