Professor Faces Trial For Distributing Jury Nullification Pamphlets

snip/
"New York has arrested and brought charges against an eccentric retired chemistry professor who frequently stands outside of federal court and informs passersby about ‘jury nullification’, a controversial practice in which jurors disregard laws they disagree with. Is Julian P. Heicklen a hooligan or hero? "
more here...

Don't have a problem with peacefully handing out information.

Otherwise, jury nullification is legal. What he did was educate on constitutional rights which would his defense (free speech clause of the First Amendment).

and that is the crux of the case, as well as the distance provision

it is for himself while on the jury? That'll include right wingers, too. When they decide murder is OK if the victim is black or whatever, are we going to see the same support for "jury nullification?"

If you believe in democracy, fully believe in it, then you have no problem with the power lying with the citizenry. There is a remedy for a foul jury decision. It is called "appeal."

but not a jury's decision. Jurors decide the facts of the case and their verdicts cannot be impeached.

What power lying to the citizenry? Both sides get to present evidence in any court case.

How can we have a rule of law if any individual can disregard it? What happens when right wingers decide it is OK to murder the doctor who does abortions?

...and then decide whether you support jury nullification.

www.fija.org

You're stuck with it unless they were improperly instructed or there was some other procedural problem.

About the only legally acceptable route is to seek prosecution in a higher court, but that can be tricky depending on the charge.

If you kill someone, go through a full trial, and are found not guilty, you can actually walk out onto the steps of the courthouse and confess in front of news cameras, and there is little that anyone can do about it. About the only recourse, in that case, would be to seek a federal prosecution if there was a kidnapping or civil rights violation involved.

There HAVE been instances where people have been discovered to be guilty of a crime they were originally acquitted of in court. In most cases, they lived out their lives as free men.

when a jury has found NOT GUILTY. Not guilty is permanent. See: double jeopardy

An exception (and imo unconstitutional but the SCOTUS disagrees) is dual sovereignty. In those cases, a new trial can commence by a different sovereign for (essentially) the same offense. That's what happened in the Rodney King trial, when they had the federal trial after the state trial. It's de facto double jeopardy imo (even though they were guilty as fuck) but technically not double jeopardy

New evidence can work FOR A defendant found guilty but it cannot work against him if he was found not guilty. If the new evidence can bring about a new crime, like prove that he committed perjury while testifying in his defense, that's a different charge, though

The fact that new evidence has been found does not automatically entitle the convicted person to relief.

I said it CAN work in his favor. It's not a gimme. It's a process analysis thing as much as anything

Pardons were regular things back then; it's the executive's primary check on the judiciary, but it's just turned into "bail out my friends at the end of my term".

misconduct. But case law has LONG established that juries have the authority to "nullify" iow they are the ULTIMATE triers of fact and law. Jurors, by nullifying, are saying the law is so egregious that they can overlook facts (such as apparent guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) and find not guilty.

It was designed that way in our system. The power rests with the people.

If a jury finds a person not guilty, unless they can prove some sort of misconduct (and case law establishes juyry nullifications does not qualify), the decision is final. see: double jeopardy.

Jury nullification was DESIGNED into our legal system as the ultimate check and balance by the people.

It was used in pre-Civil War days to free people arrested for harboring runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, helped to free the majority of people prosecuted during Prohibition, and was used to free a number of people arrested and prosecuted for protest activities during the Civil Rights Era and Vietnam War protests.

Yes, it's been abused quite a few times as well, but it's been around nearly as long as the U.S. has, and is one of the most effective checks against runaway government power. I've always looked at it the same way I look at free speech...it's an important and fundamental right, even if it's occasionally abused by jackasses like Fred Phelps, Rush Limpballs, and Faux News. While I may hate the way some people abuse it, the alternative...limiting EVERYONE...is even worse.

When a jury refused to convict John Peter Zenger for publishing "seditious libels."

and there is a reason why a jury is given that power. And yes, they have that power. It is perfectly legal for a jury to nullify and there's tons of case law to back that up. Ultimately, it is the power of the people, a jury of peers, over the state. Can it be abused? Sure. But it's a fundamental aspect of our legal system

I was in a jury selection process where the judge specifically instructed potential jurors that they would be held in contempt of court if selected for the jury and found to be engaging in jury nullification.

In her words: "The court will interpret the law; the jury is limited to interpreting the facts and following the court's instructions regarding the law."

Absolutely wrong. Infuriatingly wrong.

in the sense that it was, on its face, illegal; but in practice, a proper and respected exertion of power by the citizenry to keep congress and legislatures in check.

jury nullification has an advantage over other forms of civil disobedience in that it may be very difficult to prove that a juror was engaging in it. jury deliberations are meant to be secret, so you only have other jurors as witnesses, and they can only guess your motivations. stubbornly say you've decided "not guilty and i'm not going to change my mind" and no one can do anything to you. only if you announce that you're using jury nullification and/or actively try to convince others jurors to use jury nullification could it possibly be proven.

still, it doesn't invalidate the verdict. you merely get found in contempt, afaik.

There is no law against it. It is within the discretion of a jury.

The law forbids the Judge and the attorneys from instructing the jury that they do have the right to judge the law, so if the jury doesn't know their right to do so, which most do not, then they won't be using it even if they are disturbed by a law, eg, the Federal Drug laws, when the state laws are different.

But no judge has the right to forbid jury members to use the rule if they ARE aware of it. She was completely wrong and I hope she is not still a judge.

Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for contempt or anything else for nullification. A juror has absolute authority to make a decision based on their conscience as well as their appraisal of the objective facts. It is established law.

....that arrests are made for handing out leaflets about jury nullification, our last Constitutionally allowed protection against tyranny.

It is the duty of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. That is the genius of our system, now quashed by tyrants.

Jury Nullification is a perfectly legal method of giving the people a way to deal with laws that themselves are unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers knew that elected officials would abuse their powere sometimes and as a result would pass unfair laws.

They wanted the people to have some power to address that and used the Jury system to do so.

I wondered why this is not taught to Americans, their right to judge the law itself until I started reading the history of the law.

To make it short, along the way, authorities have attempted to remove this powerful tool from the people. They have not made it illegal for a jury to do this. But, they have made it illegal for the judge eg, to instruct the jurors that have that right.

Also, I believe, that neither the defense or prosecution attorneys can make it known to the jury.

So, if citizens do not know they have that power, of course they cannot use it and no one can tell them about it according to the law.

I thought it WAS illegal as most people do and often juries are forced to make decisions based only on laws that they often find difficult.

Jury Nullification would be a powerful tool against the draconian drug laws, and I've often wondered why it has not been used for that purpose.

The FFs felt that if certain unfair laws were judged often enough, rather than those accused of violating them, by the people, that would be a way to deal with abuse of power by legislators.

This professor has a right to educate the people. I don't see how they can charge him with informing citizens of the law.

That's the entity working for decades to educate the populace.

Maybe the ACLU will take this professor's case.


www.fija.org

to judge the law also.

We need an educated population and we don't have that. Maybe if this case gets enough attention, which it probably won't, a few more people will learn their rights.

What law was he arrested for violating?

for informing the public of their rights, it truly is an outrage.

But a trial and acquittal of this professor should help to educate the people of those rights which most Americans do not know they have.

I would love to be on that jury. If there is a law under which they were able to arrest him for simply diseminating information, that is definitely a law that needs to go and Jury Nullification can help with that.

But the jurors, or at least one of them, has to know their rights and they are deliberately kept ignorant of those rights.

and that's a good thing.

large, foamboard copies of said, to show before his jury...

the pamphlet to have a case

It's a democratic way for the citizenry to render bullshit laws unenforceable, like marijuana prohibition or drug possession or pubic drunkendness.

If a jury refuses to convict, and repeatedly does so, the DA will eventually have no choice but to stop pressing charges in such cases.

power to the people! :patriot:

Seems like a pretty clear free speech issue. He really should get a lawyer though, defending yourself is not often a good idea.

In 1895 the Supreme Court under pressure from large corporations ruled that courts no longer had to inform juries they could veto an unjust law. Corporations lost numerous trials pressed against labor leaders trying to organize unions. Remember, striking was against the law at that time.

Juries also ruled against corporations in damage suits and other cases. This prompted members of the American Bar Association to fear that jurors were becoming too hostile to their clients and too sympathetic to the poor. As the American Law Review wrote in 1892, jurors had "developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character."




As I am sure you all know, jury nullification has always been a part of our history. Here's some quotes from history:

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy."

--John Jay (first Chief Justice of Supreme Court, 1789)




"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 have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

--John Jay (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794)




"The Jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

--Samuel Chase (Supreme Court Justice & Signer of the Declaration of Independence, 1796)




"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

--Harlan F. Stone (Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941)




"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

--U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1792)




"It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

--John Adams




"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of the constitution."

--Thomas Paine

Spread the word. The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts of a case.

and based on what I've read on legal blogs- he'll win

That's a characterization the reporter should not make, unless quoting someone who said it about the professor.

He is informing people (all passersby, not just jurors) about something that is *legal*.

How can arresting someone for educating people about a legal activity possibly not violate the First Amendment?