I had cases where the defense lawyer argued for jury nullification openly.

The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.

brerrabbit: I think the state is going to get their asses handed to them over this case.

hopefully it becomes a trend in non violent drug cases.

If the author were being completely honest, he would have acknowledged that there is no case directly on point for the question of whether there is a constitutional right to jury nullification. No juror has yet been prosecuted for voting to nullify. Until we get that case, we technically don't know whether or not the right exists.

timujin: Since this case is about jury nullification, I assume the subject will come up if it goes to trial... and then that the jury would let him off through jury nullification

Ah, but the prosecutor is smarter than that. A jury trial is only guaranteed for felony trials, and the asshat prosecutor made sure that he only charged a misdemeanor. I guess that six months in jail isn't worth due process, I guess.

oldebayer: The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

First rule of Nullification Club is you tell everyone about Nullification Club.

bugontherug: If the author were being completely honest, he would have acknowledged that there is no case directly on point for the question of whether there is a constitutional right to jury nullification. No juror has yet been prosecuted for voting to nullify. Until we get that case, we technically don't know whether or not the right exists.

Bullshiat.the default position for a right is it exists, unless legislated, not adjudicated, away.

oldebayer: The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.

Not only that, but nothing in the First Amendment prevents people from facing the consequences of their speech. Speak out all you want. But if you say certain things, expect criminal repercussions.

Choices and personal responsibility. The essence of life.

Libertarians and the Fully Informed Jury Association have been active in this for a long time.

FIJA (new window)

FirstNationalBastard: Prosecutors are scum.

They aren't concerned with justice but winning a case is what they're after; right or wrong. They have nothing to lose as they aren't held responsible for their actions and the possible consequences on another persons life.
This needs to change. Now.

devildog123: This is going to be interesting. Farkers are going to have to agree with Scalia on something.

How so? Most Farkers seem to believe that the prosecutor was in the wrong. Scalia would probably side with the prosecutor. Hell, he's argued that actual innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction. He's not exactly a proponent for defendant's rights.

oldebayer: The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.


The man was not discussing any "case". He was informing citizens of their rights as citizens.

Fully Informed Jury Association

/Resistance is Victory!

aselene: oldebayer: The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.

Not only that, but nothing in the First Amendment prevents people from facing the consequences of their speech. Speak out all you want. But if you say certain things, expect criminal repercussions.

Choices and personal responsibility. The essence of life.

Read the article, the man was not a juror. He stood outside a courthouse, and passed informative flyers out to people walking into the courthouse.

nopokerface: I had cases where the defense lawyer argued for jury nullification openly.

Now, I thought that was illegal, at least thats what I have been told.

FirstNationalBastard: Prosecutors are scum.

I hate them with a passion, a friends brother(who is a little slow) got 7 years in jail for flashing kids that were close to his age but still in the 11-14 age range, a couple years later a man who had admitted to raping a 6 and 7 year old girl got 3 years and was out in less than 2 with good behavior.

I asked a friend who worked at the sheriffs office how that is possible and their response was "His attorney didnt kiss his ass"

People need to learn. Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility for what you say. You are 100% free to say whatever you want to in any situation imaginable. There may be consequences for your actions, however. Be prepared to deal with them...

Shvetz: devildog123: This is going to be interesting. Farkers are going to have to agree with Scalia on something.

How so? Most Farkers seem to believe that the prosecutor was in the wrong. Scalia would probably side with the prosecutor. Hell, he's argued that actual innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction. He's not exactly a proponent for defendant's rights.

Well, someone didn't read the article.

prickly pete v2: Shvetz: devildog123: This is going to be interesting. Farkers are going to have to agree with Scalia on something.

How so? Most Farkers seem to believe that the prosecutor was in the wrong. Scalia would probably side with the prosecutor. Hell, he's argued that actual innocence isn't enough to overturn a conviction. He's not exactly a proponent for defendant's rights.

Well, someone didn't read the article.

Farkers dont read enough of scalia's opinions either, for all the hatred directed at him, he is actually a smart man.

FirstNationalBastard: Prosecutors Drug users are scum.

/FTFY

Jury nullification is not legal. It is a dereliction of your duty as a juror. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else does it say that a jury have the right to decide according to their consciences rather than the law. It is impossible to prosecute, and this is intentional, but that does not make it legal. If you advocate it, however, you advocate a crime, which is always a bit of a trap where the first amendment is concerned, but can be banned under certain circumstances, and I would say directly advising nullification to jurors suffices.

aselene: oldebayer: The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom.

Not only that, but nothing in the First Amendment prevents people from facing the consequences of their speech. Speak out all you want. But if you say certain things, expect criminal repercussions.

Choices and personal responsibility. The essence of life.

Uh huh. He's been charged with jury tampering. If the prosecutor can show he was in fact trying to influence a jury - as opposed to potential jurors not yet impaneled - then there should be consequences. But providing generic information to potential jurors is merely an annoyance to the prosecutor who finds ignorant jurors more amenable: it is not jury tampering.

oldebayer 2011-12-21 04:20:07 PM
The First Amendment is not a carte blanche.

Also, as I seem to recall from being sworn in four times for jury duty, you are required not to discuss a case outside the courtroom

BUT, as a Juror, don't you all have to converse and come to an agreement? In non violent cases (MOST of which may be
"oh noes the weed smoker, protect our children") WTF are we doing sending these people to jail/prison for?
Here in AZ, one SEED in your cars ashtray sends you to tent city and dui classes lasting 6 months.
Hell, one person got a dui on superbowl day, with his car out front on SOMEONES LAWN, just reaching
in to turn down the radio when cops showed up for a loud noise complaint. "well, the keys were in the vehicle" they said.

I would have gone apes#it if some IDIOT Phoenix pig tried to cite me over that. And, they are ALL power tripping idiots here.
General consensus is "never call the pigs here" unless someone else has a gun pointed at you.

steamingpile: I hate them with a passion, a friends brother(who is a little slow) got 7 years in jail for flashing kids that were close to his age but still in the 11-14 age range, a couple years later a man who had admitted to raping a 6 and 7 year old girl got 3 years and was out in less than 2 with good behavior.


Hard for laymen to comprehend but it all depends on the evidence supporting the charge. I'm sure the prosecutor would have loved to send the child rapist to jail for several decades but without evidence to support the charge there's not much that can be done. So yes that means sometimes a serious offender gets a lighter sentence because there's less proof than another offender who committed a less serious offense that has better proof.

AuntNotAnt: Jury nullification is not legal

So then you support slavery then? What a bastard you are.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: bugontherug: If the author were being completely honest, he would have acknowledged that there is no case directly on point for the question of whether there is a constitutional right to jury nullification. No juror has yet been prosecuted for voting to nullify. Until we get that case, we technically don't know whether or not the right exists.

Bullshiat.the default position for a right is it exists, unless legislated, not adjudicated, away.

Um. Nothing I said indicated otherwise. Do you imagine that I think the Supreme Court will prosecute the case itself? Why on earth would you think that? Yes, we would have to begin with some government attempt to abrogate the right, and then we would have to have a case wind its way up to the Supreme Court to get a final ruling on the subject.

Me: Apples are red!

You: bullshiat, apples are round!

aselene: Not only that, but nothing in the First Amendment prevents people from facing the consequences of their speech. Speak out all you want. But if you say certain things, expect criminal repercussions.

Yes, it does.* That's the whole point - if you cannot say it without the state ass-raping you, it isn't free speech. "You can speak up until the state chops you head off for speaking" is the exact opposite of the idea behind the First Amendment. The guy is presenting a viewpoint that doesn't lie about the state, it isn't causing a riot against the state - and until they successfully prosecute a juror for it and wend it through the system to SCOTUS, there is no way to say his position isn't perfectly in line with American jurisprudence, so it isn't even rising to the level of destabilizing the Union.



* We are stipulating that we are not talking about stuff ruled not covered by the 1st, like libel, slander, "Fire! Fire!", etc. We are also not talking about non-state actors oppsoing what you say, just the state versus you for a non-slanderous, non-riot-provoking comment

HopScotchNSoda: 'Twas jury nullification in 1735 that led to the recognition of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, and established that our leaders are not immune from criticism or even what was then considered seditious libel. The Crown v. John Peter Zenger

I'll bet the Crown would go after him for talking shiat about Bill Cosby! Who wouldn't?

JK47: Hard for laymen to comprehend but it all depends on the evidence supporting the charge. I'm sure the prosecutor would have loved to send the child rapist to jail for several decades but without evidence to support the charge there's not much that can be done. So yes that means sometimes a serious offender gets a lighter sentence because there's less proof than another offender who committed a less serious offense that has better proof.

See thats the problem, nobody wanted to testify in either case but I fully believe he was given such a harsh sentence because it was an election year and the lawyer was not from the area, he wanted to make an example and he was easy with his shiatty lawyer.

The only good part is the prison doctor saw that he was mildly retarded and he spent most of his time in a hospital, instead of general population.

Lizardking: People need to learn. Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from responsibility for what you say. You are 100% free to say whatever you want to in any situation imaginable. There may be consequences for your actions, however. Be prepared to deal with them...

If that is what is meant by freedom of speech...then don't we have freedom of murder. I can murder any one I want as long as I deal with the consequences (or run from the consequences as I am also free to do).

Naa, I think freedom of speech means that there will NOT be legal consequences.

dahmers love zombie: I guess if you discussed jury nullification in regards to a terrorism case, they could black-bag you and not worry about the jury at this point, eh?


Good point.

They could just "suspect" you of being associated with someone who might have at some point/ affiliated/ consorted/ transacted with someone who might be somehow be associated with some group that might be suspected as a "terrorist" organization.

Which would make you a "suspected terrorist" who, thanks to recent legislation, would no longer have to suffer through the Constitutional requirements containing clutter such as evidence, trial by jury and related time-wasters.

Accusation = guilt, effectively.

And a good time was had by all.