Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Harold Tuttle on November 29, 2011, 01:32:50 PM
-
Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse
in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that
if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.
Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said:
“The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification.
Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/nyregion/brief-details-jury-nullification-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=2&sq=julian
Julian was a neighbor, back when i was a lad.
-
“advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”
“His speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” prosecutors wrote.
“No legal system could long survive,” they added, “if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”
Whoa.
That there is some serious over reach, IMO. I am/was a jurr and likely will be in the future. Can the voluble prof only speak to resident aliens on this topic?
This ought to be dismissed, posthaste.
-
The
Sixth Amendment (?) 7th Amendment gives the jury an irrevocable veto over the law if they think the law should not be applied to the case. (otherwise, what is the point of having a jury? surely a simple adding machine would be more efficient)
USSC Chief Justice John Jay: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794)
-
Did you catch the last part of the linked article?
If the case isn't dismissed out of hand, the guy wants a jury trial - but the prosecutor opposes that demand! ???
Since when is it up to a prosecutor - or anyone else, for that matter - to decide if someone who's been criminally charged is allowed to have a jury trial?
By the way, the judge, Kimba Wood, has an interesting history - she trained as a Playboy bunny, was appointed to a Federal judgeship by Reagan, and was the second problematic nomination for Attorney General by Clinton (Nannygate II) before withdrawing and getting replaced by Janet Reno.
-
Hearing prosecutors mouthing off like that always makes me wonder about their offices.
Each place I've been, no jokers, nor could I imagine some makes us all look bad hack being given such free reign.
But then again, I've always done my utmost to avoid working in a bad office. It rather makes me think that in a poorly run office, the sky is the limit for injustice wrought by incompetence and outright villainy.
I also do think a jury trial for jury nullification is a thing of beauty. Judges can bar it from being discussed in other cases, but as its the central issue... as this thread has already demonstrated, there are A LOT of great quotes and legal rulings in support of it that a jury would hear.
-
and one could distribute Jury Nullification Pamphlets outside of the venue
-
and one could distribute Jury Nullification Pamphlets outside of the venue
Naaah! Just show up in a tee shirt saying "Ask Me About Jury Nullification".
-
Naaah! Just show up in a tee shirt saying "Ask Me About Jury Nullification".
Hey, maybe you could make money selling those to people who are up for jury duty. Guaranteed to get you out of it. :lol:
-
In another forum, we were discussing modifications that could be made to the current government of the US to add additional "checks and balances". One of the ideas proposed was a "sanity check" branch, composed of random citizens elected for one decision, an equal number from each state. A 2/3 majority would be required of the sanity check board for any law to be passed.
It's a decent idea but it struck me that we kind of have something like that already....the jury.
-
In another forum, we were discussing modifications that could be made to the current government of the US to add additional "checks and balances". One of the ideas proposed was a "sanity check" branch, composed of random citizens elected for one decision, an equal number from each state. A 2/3 majority would be required of the sanity check board for any law to be passed.
It's a decent idea but it struck me that we kind of have something like that already....the jury.
We used to have a Senate that represented the state governments, instead of being elected by the people. The latter I suppose sounded like a good idea but it allows interests outside the state to pour money into campaigns.*
The one "campaign reform" that I would like to see, is to limit donations to state/local candidates to residents of the jurisdiction that will be served.
* Not to mention the fed.gov itself advocating for/against state issues [ar15]
-
Lately I've been seeing a lot of unsettling things in the Judiciary. My state is reeling from two judges that sentenced thousands of children to hard time in exchange for cash. We are in the middle of another scandal that involved at least one DA overlooking children being sexually assaulted. As far as I see it, it's partly because there's not a very good corrective measure to hold them accountable. The few measures in place are not exactly good ideas, such as mandatory sentencing.
I notice the judges and prosecutors tend to get a bit uh, "rabidly foaming at the mouth" at the mere mention of jury nullification. I was under the impression that jurors were supposed to decide guilt or innocence. I also thought judges couldn't tamper with "not guilty" votes, but coudl with "guilty" votes. But I've heard incidents of both being ignored.
Here's my thoughts on the matter: The cops can lie to you. You cannot lie to the cops. DA and cops are basically a unified team. Both have significantly more resources than the average person. They have massive legal advantages as well. Public defenders are historically under funded/staffed, and often are more supportive of the DA than their clients. Even if you win a case, you still must pay ruinous legal fees and are not automatically entitled to getting your property back if it is seized.
It is not humanly possible to know the law, yet you are bound to follow laws that you cannot possibly understand with or without legal training. We have a handful of lawyers and a judge here. I guarantee that they do not know international weapons trafficking law as well as I do. I did that every day, non-stop, for a year and a half. I read the relevant laws, multiple times, read hundreds of regulatory decisions, etc. I didn't understand a fraction of the situation. After talking to the HEAD ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS at the relevant government agencies, I learned THEY didn't either. They certainly knew it better than me. But there were HUGE grey areas that no one had any idea what the law meant in reality, and it was SOLELY down to the skill/resources of the lawyer for the defendant or prosecution to determine whether an action was legal or not. For the same general activity, some folks walked, others got huge fines.
I am not a foaming at the mouth activist. This is just from direct observation of how things are. It greatly varies, township by township, county by county. I look very closely at the legal systems of a place before I live there. But those above issues are generally universal.
If I was a judge, DA or cop, I'd be mildly supportive of jury nullification as a necessary pressure valve. The legal system is not advantageous to the average guy or gal to a large extent, and relies on the personal integrity of judges/DA/cops not to be abusive of their advantages. I have no idea if that's good, bad or neither. But if any one of those three significantly overstep their position (even staying within the law), it will lead to public perception issues that would be more impacting than letting the odd person off when the law possibly says otherwise. Piss the people off enough, and there will be a massive overcorrection. It's what always happens. Some group pushes the people too far, and they go too far in "fixing" the problem.
-
due to my brother being a police officer, I am never picked for Jury duty.
I am ten yrs older and have not lived with him since he was 7 but am never considered.