by Doug Book, staff writer
Prosecutors in New York City have decided that the dissemination of truth near American courthouses threatens to rock the very foundations of the American legal system.
For years, retired Penn State chemistry professor Julian Heicklen has handed out literature to passersby in front of the Manhattan courthouse, informing them of the rights of jurors. As stated by the Fully Informed Jury Association, “the primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.”
And as John Adams said of the juror, “…it is not only his 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.”
In short, trial by jury offers the final means by which the American people may millitate against an unfair law. And if jurors indeed find a law to be unjust or improperly applied, it is their absolute right to ignore any directions given them by a judge and vote to acquit the defendant.
But federal prosecutors do not agree that jurors should be imbued with such power, nor do they consider it appropriate that meddlers like Julian Heinklen should make the common folk aware of their right to so willfully check the advance of tyranny.
So after indicting the old professor in February, last month prosecutors deigned to inform Heicklen of the charges against him, stating “…advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections NO MATTER WHERE IT OCCURRED ( my caps).” “His speech is not protected by the first amendment,” writes prosecutor Rebecca Mermelstein.
Needless to say, jury nullification has been a controversial topic and not a favored issue with courts. But to indict and prosecute someone for handing out literature which conveys facts concerning the rights of an American juror does not sit well with a great many people. “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification”, claims Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
“No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable,” said prosecutors of their decision to try Julian Heinklen for his “crime.”
But it is not the average American or the average juror who “disregards with impunity, the law.” Nor do most Americans work to impose their own “personal standard” of conduct on others via the laws of the land. It is the arrogant official of the political ruling class, epitomized by the vigilante, robed legislator who makes common practice of both. And jury nullification is perhaps the last remaining safeguard against the forced intrusion of such would-be dictators on the liberty of the American public.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To read more about this issue use these links:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?scp=1&sq=Julien%20heicklen&st=cse
Related posts: http://www.coachisright.com/did-the-senate-vote-to-suspend-the-constitution/
http://www.coachisright.com/the-governments-tactical-assault-on-our-liberty/
http://www.coachisright.com/do-we-the-people-have-the-right-of-revolution/
DEC. 13th this day in history:
2000: George Bush accepted the presidency, 36 days after the election. Al Gore Jr., conceded.
Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?
In this world you may have knowledge or you may repose, but you may not have both.
What have you done today to deserve to live in America? COMMENTS on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
Loading ...
[...] The truth is no defense « Coach is Right. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
Doug-what is the constitutional basis for what the FIJA is doing? I think these people are on to something but the absence of this justification really stands out. If they have this justification they should clearly state it up front.
Bill,
Thanks very much for your comment and interest. I first read of jury nullification just a couple of years ago. Sounded like an extremely interesting, though naturally very controversial topic. Heicklen's story brought me back around to writing a piece on it.
The 2nd link above under "read more about this issue" provides some pretty fair insight in response to your question as does the FIJA link just above it. The quote below was taken from the ISIL website/link.
"Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it."
I believe this makes sense. Of course, many argue that the practice of jury nullification will lead to chaos and certainly its abuse must have that effect. But properly and thoughtfully applied it seems to me the sort of "last resort" method of dispensing justice (or preserving justice) the Founders had in mind.
Speech about law and government is precisely the speech protected by the First Amendment.
Last time I had jury duty I put on the questionnaire that I believed in jury nullification. I am fed up with the War on Non-Big Pharma Drugs. It is used to enable rogue cops to dress up in Ninja suits, hide their faces behind masks and kick in anybody's door, or take your property and keep it without due process.
I will never, under any circumstances, find anybody guilty of any drug crime. If they could no longer get convictions, the War on Non-Big Pharma Drugs would whimper into the sunset.
The first rule of jury nullification is that you never give any hint at all to the judge or the prosecutor that you know anything about such a thing. Simply demand a totally impossible standard of evidence from the prosecution, and imply that you're not sure that they didn't falsify evidence or attempt to frame the accused. Let's face it, if you set the probability of convicting a person innocent (of THIS particular crime) up around 1 in 10 Billion, you couldn't convict ANYONE. All you've got to do is set 'reasonable doubt', which is a fuzzy thing, up at astronomical levels.
Oh, one more thing—if you do succeed in getting a nullification on the major charges, make sure you get the minor ones too, even if they seem absurd to you (e.g., Bernie Goetz's illegal carry of a firearm charges). Otherwise a hostile judge (and he WILL be hostile) is likely to throw the book at the accused for what you DO say guilty on.
Jehu-so are you saying you want nobody convicted at all except that guy who is the one accused in 1o billion ? If that´s the case then we have anarchy and the tyranny of the violent who prey on the innocent without judicial check.
Is this what you want?
No, what you do is ask who…whom when you look at the charges. If the charges are reasonable and proper, you use a much more normal 'reasonable doubt standard'. If they're bogus, unjust, or selectively enforced, you use the standard I described previously.
This is how you do jury nullification without giving any actual evidence that this is what you are doing. You can't nullify if you don't actually make it ONTO the jury or if you get removed from it, after all.
The truth may not be a defense against overzealous gestapo-style prosecutors, but when the defense puts the prosecutor on the stand and asks if jurors have the rights he espoused, and the answer has to be yes, (unless the prosecutor commits easily-provable perjury), and the defense asks if the prosecutor believes the First Amendment to the Constitution to be valid, and the answer is yes, (unless the prosecutor commits easily-provable perjury), the case is over, and the defense can rest.
RR
This is just another example of how evil America
has become……… Raymond
In America, murdering a child in the mothers womb is called a "Civil Right." God calls this action murder & promises to judge all those involved in such evil.
In America, politicians make laws that make it a
federal crime to expose them.
In America, burning the national flag is called a 'Civil Right."
In America, you can be arrested for reciting the pledge of allegiance.
In America, you can be expelled from school for wearing a shirt that has the America flag on it.
In America, burning the Bible is called a "Civil Right," but burning the Qur'an is called a "Hate Crime."
I’ve known about jury nullification (for want of a better term, and it really is a poor one and overly narrow in focus) for most of my life. I’m mystified that anyone would not be perfectly familiar with it. It’s a civic duty of all citizens to be informed on matters like this.
The unnamed prosecutors to whom the quote is attributed that the legal system cannot abide fully informed and empowered jurors are as wrong as it is possible to be, and their improper actions are reprehensible. They should themselves be charged and tried to the extent they follow through officially on their ideas.
If any judge asked me questions pertaining to thought processes, motivations, and scope of consideration I might employ to reach my decision while empaneled in a jury, I would politely and respectfully, but firmly, respond to by saying the question is improper and I will not under any circumstances answer said question. If he attempt to circumscribe my power as a juror in any way, I will not acknowledge or consider myself bound by any such instruction.
No one in authority is privileged to question anything about my conduct as a juror short of specific matters of corruption such as agreeing to outright tampering, or gross inattention or frivolous behavior. They may ask me about my history, whether or not I am acquainted with the defendant, and I may or may not agree to answer (I almost certainly would answer voluntarily), and their only recourse would be to dismiss me from being empaneled. They may NOT ask me about what thought processes I might use, or whether or not I am fully informed of the powers of a juror. I guarantee I will decline to respond to the latter kind of questions.
The Constitution is the worst enemy of bold, arrogant, and corrupt authority figures.
fnj,
Here's another link to the NY Times November article on Heicklen. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/nyregion/brief-…
Prosecutors are overstepping their authority in indicting this man for exercising his rights. In fact, a judge in Florida also found Heicklen guilty of a crime for handing out jury nullification literature. Link to that info is below.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=36276
In America, the sins of homosexuality & lesbianism is called a "Civil Right." God calls it an abomination & promises to judge all who are involved in such evil.
In America, sodomites are allowed & encouraged to have parades
celebrating their wickedness.
In America, it's a "Hate Crime" for heterosexuals to have a parade
celebrating their heterosexuality.
In America, telling the truth about Islam will get you arrested.
In America, protecting yourself & your family against an attacker
can get you arrested.
In America, God's Word is called "Hate Material."
In America, talking about God's Laws is called "Hate Speech."
In America, many in power are involved in voter fraud.
In America, profanity is called "Free Speech."
In America, placing a cross in a jar of urine is called "Freedom of Expression."
In America, you can be arrested for reading the Bible in public.
In America, males are encouraged to dress like women.
In America, sexual assault on a child is legal at the airport.
In America, you can be fined for having an "offensive"
bumper sticker on your vehicle. Of course homosexuals & lesbians will be the ones to determine what's "offensive".
In America, homosexuals & lesbians decide what's right
and what's wrong.
Doug ! The responses to this excellent article are amazing ! Not a single contributor is willing to concede their power to the corrupt collusion between City, State and Federal prosecutor's offices, trial attorneys and the "Hizzoners" who so arrogantly throw their weight around America['s courtrooms.
This is testament to the fact that folks such as Heicklen are successfully waking up the citizenry to the knowledge that an empaneled jury has the right to determine both guilt and the applicability of law (s) under which an individual is being tried.
To directly, or indirectly, threaten the absolute power wielded by the "bench and gavel", through the employment of Jury Nullification, is every American's Constitutional duty…..and it is just another right that the attorneys in Congress, and those in the courtrooms, have ripped-off from citizen juries.
How terribly inconvenient this Constitution of ours is to those seeking ever more control over us; and how studiously and forcefully they avoid having to be a servant of that document !
There are no such things allowed in American Courtrooms as "standards of moral and ethical conduct"; attorneys do not even use the Standard of what a reasonable man would conclude…we all know that "justice" is not the same thing as being legally bound by these imposed, one-sided contracts attorneys call "Laws" , and everything has been reduced to legal technicalities which our dumb, illiterate, un-schooled in law American juries couldn't possibly decipher .
I've had enough of all of them.