Medical Marijuana Supporters Not Donating To Obama

[ozzrokk]

My point is that we shouldn't be worried that we have certain groups represented as much as we should be worried that the jury is fair. That's what voir dire is for. Imperfect? Yes. The best we can doing given human nature? Maybe.

 

 

I agree a fair jury is all anyone can ask for...... Not a jury that is pre instructed or coerced into a guilty verdict ...... Just a fair jury.....

 

Edited to add or pre instructed or coerced into an innocent verdict.

Edited October 15, 2012 by ozzrokk

[CaveatLector]

I watched as the jury returned. Each jury member was threatened by the judge. Functional directed guilty verdict.

Yes, if they were 4 years old and thought that they then MUST deliver a guilty verdict. Again, don't be so obtuse peanut. The jury is composed of adults. You are suggesting that they were scared by the judge to render a specific verdict. "Find him guilty or I'ma gonna burn you!"

 

On the one hand you want to argue that a jury, is able to, and should use common sense and then on the other you want to act as if they are scared, quivering, gelatinous masses that are drones for the court. AND that the court WANTS a conviction.

 

Which is it? Stop equivocating. You do that too much.

Edited October 15, 2012 by CaveatLector

[ozzrokk]

And in the voir dire process each side tries to pick the most bias person for their side..... Yea they are not looking for a fair jury.

[ozzrokk]

Yes, if they were 4 years old and thought that they then MUST deliver a guilty verdict. Again, don't be so obtuse peanut. The jury is compaosed of adults. You are suggesting that they were scared by the judge to render a specific verdict. "Find him guilty or I'ma gonna burn you!"

 

On the one hand you want to argue that a jury, is able to, and should use common sense and then on the other you want to act as if they are scared, quivering, gelatinous masses that are drones for the court. AND that the court WANTS a conviction.

 

Which is it? Stop equivocating. You do that too much.

 

 

Yea but do you HONESTY think that most people are NOT INTIMIDATED by a judge in the court room.

[CaveatLector]

I agree a fair jury is all anyone can ask for...... Not a jury that is pre instructed or coerced into a guilty verdict ...... Just a fair jury.....

 

Edited to add or pre instructed or coerced into an innocent verdict.

Perfect. And I agree. And if the judge had a bias for conviction, and prompted such form the jury, in the case you cite then that is bad. That is a problem with the judge, not the jury system. Frankly, that is the same as a jury having a bias for conviction or innocence isn't it? It's a human failing. Until we can overcome our "human-ness" then I suppose we are stuck with being humans and there will always be mistakes made whether it be a judge, doctor, accountant, factory worker, etc..

Edited October 15, 2012 by CaveatLector

[ozzrokk]

Perfect. And I agree. And if the judge had a bias for conviction, and prompted such form the jury, in the case you cite then that is bad. That is a problem with the judge, not the jury system. Frankly, that is the same as a jury have a bias for conviction or innocence isn't it? It's a human failing. Until we can overcome our "human-ness" then I suppose we are stuck with being humans and there will always be mistakes made whether it be a judge, doctor, accountant, factory worker, etc..

 

 

Correct. But the judge is supposed to be the ULTIMATE mediator right? Sorry but there is no room for error in that department. That is why a judge is a judge but some seem to forget that.

[CaveatLector]

And in the voir dire process each side tries to pick the most bias person for their side..... Yea they are not looking for a fair jury.

Which is why each side has unlimited challenges/dismissals "for cause."

[CaveatLector]

 

 

Correct. But the judge is supposed to be the ULTIMATE mediator right? Sorry but there is no room for error in that department. That is why a judge is a judge but some seem to forget that.

I agree. That's why such an instruction to the jury may be grounds for reversal on appeal. Probably would if it is clear that the judge made it seem as though s/he was pushing for conviction. Plain and simple.

[ozzrokk]

I agree. That's why such an instruction to the jury may be grounds for reversal on appeal. Probably would if it is clear that the judge made it seem as though s/he was pushing for conviction. Plain and simple.

 

 

I agree. It is truly sad that you have to go that way because a judge cannot keep his bias to himself but I agree at this point that is the only option. Unfortunatly.

[peanutbutter]

Perfect. And I agree. And if the judge had a bias for conviction, and prompted such form the jury, in the case you cite then that is bad. That is a problem with the judge, not the jury system. Frankly, that is the same as a jury have a bias for conviction or innocence isn't it? It's a human failing. Until we can overcome our "human-ness" then I suppose we are stuck with being humans and there will always be mistakes made whether it be a judge, doctor, accountant, factory worker, etc..

 

Many courts were incorrectly applying the MMMA.

 

Thus said the Supreme Court.

 

When maximum pressure is applied to juries to conform to the incorrect biases of the judge, there has been a miscarriage of justice.

 

In the case listed, the judge made it clear that members of the jury could go to jail. One at a time. Isolated before the court.

 

How many seriously ill people have the resources to fight all the way? This is the kind of victim this process hurts.

Edited October 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

Many courts were incorrectly applying the MMMA.

 

Thus said the Supreme Court.

Many courts incorrectly apply all sorts of laws in Michigan and beyond. That's not a new phenomenon. That's why we have a COA and Sup Ct. You do realize, do you not, that every case ruled on by appeals courts is a result of a case where someone felt that the trial court incorrectly decided something? That's why our system has 2 levels of appeals. It's a backstop. You're pretending that there is a way to make everything perfect at the trial court level even given human failings. That's not so.

 

The legal system here isn't perfect but it is certainly the most fair in the world. I'd like to see you design a system with zero failings. As I stated already, jury nullification can be used both ways. It is a double-edged sword and can hurt as much as it can help.

[Celliach]

Many courts were incorrectly applying the MMMA.

 

Thus said the Supreme Court.

 

When maximum pressure is applied to juries to conform to the incorrect biases of the judge, there has been a miscarriage of justice.

 

In the case listed, the judge made it clear that members of the jury could go to jail. One at a time. Isolated before the court.

 

How many seriously ill people have the resources to fight all the way? This is the kind of victim this process hurts.

 

Can you show me where the supreme court said that?

 

Are you sure they didn't say the lower courts weren't applying Section 8 of the MMMA correctly?

 

When it comes to legal things like this, it's dangerous to make wide sweeping generalities as you've just done.

[Celliach]

Kelley's rule of average intelligence comes into play here too. The rule states that since average intelligence is at the 50% mark, then half the people in the world are under average intelligence. To put it bluntly half the people in the world are stupid.

 

Half the people on the jury are going to be stupid and mess things up for the other half. That's why our country is so messed up, half of us are stupid.

[Herb Cannabis]

I watched as the jury returned. Each jury member was threatened by the judge. Functional directed guilty verdict.

 

Please be a little more specific, how did he threaten them, what did he say to them? Just trying to understand, thanks.

[CaveatLector]

Kelley's rule of average intelligence comes into play here too. The rule states that since average intelligence is at the 50% mark, then half the people in the world are under average intelligence. To put it bluntly half the people in the world are stupid.

 

Half the people on the jury are going to be stupid and mess things up for the other half. That's why our country is so messed up, half of us are stupid.

I don't agree that half the people are stupid. Average intelligence is a range from about 85 to 110 in IQ. IQ tends to have a low standard of deviation. That means that the great majority of people fall within average intelligence. Those that fall above and below average intelligence don't even, together, make up 50% of the population.

 

With that said, I do realize that you were probably writing colloquially and not literally. But I felt the need to make this clear for those that fall below average intelligence.

[peanutbutter]

Please be a little more specific, how did he threaten them, what did he say to them? Just trying to understand, thanks.

 

No .. I'm not going to be specific.

 

The procedure of nullifying the MMMA by way of the ruse of denying information to the jury was found to be against the law. By the Michigan Supreme Court.

Therefore there HAVE been cases where the jury was not allowed the complete picture to judge by.

 

Denial of the ability to present the section 8 defense has tainted many cases in Michigan.

[Herb Cannabis]

No .. I'm not going to be specific.

 

The procedure of nullifying the MMMA by way of the ruse of denying information to the jury was found to be against the law. By the Michigan Supreme Court.

Therefore there HAVE been cases where the jury was not allowed the complete picture to judge by.

 

Denial of the ability to present the section 8 defense has tainted many cases in Michigan.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

[Celliach]

With that said, I do realize that you were probably writing colloquially and not literally. But I felt the need to make this clear for those that fall below average intelligence.

 

Too much! I almost fell out of my chair laughing!

[Celliach]

Posted Today, 04:19 PM

Herb Cannabis, on 15 October 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

 

Please be a little more specific, how did he threaten them, what did he say to them? Just trying to understand, thanks.

No .. I'm not going to be specific.

 

The procedure of nullifying the MMMA by way of the ruse of denying information to the jury was found to be against the law. By the Michigan Supreme Court.

Therefore there HAVE been cases where the jury was not allowed the complete picture to judge by.

Denial of the ability to present the section 8 defense has tainted many cases in Michigan.

 

So in other words you were just spouting opinions that you have no proof of, correct?

[Celliach]

To be more specific, during the Barb Agro trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, a few activists did some questionable jury education outside the courthouse, and the prosecutor and judge did not seem to appreciate it, calling it potential jury tampering. Apparently each member of the jury was called up and asked whether they could still render a guilty verdict in the case. I do not know how the question was asked, but I do know that many watching the proceeding felt that the jurors were pressured or threatened by the interaction.

 

So MMJ activists tainted the jury pool and PB is claiming it was the judge messing withthe jury, not the activists.

 

Sheesh! I'm on the side of the activists, but you have to do everything legally. By talking to the jury the activists may well have gotten someone convicted. How does that help them?

[Herb Cannabis]

To be more specific, during the Barb Agro trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, a few activists did some questionable jury education outside the courthouse, and the prosecutor and judge did not seem to appreciate it, calling it potential jury tampering. Apparently each member of the jury was called up and asked whether they could still render a guilty verdict in the case. I do not know how the question was asked, but I do know that many watching the proceeding felt that the jurors were pressured or threatened by the interaction.

 

I think it would have been a good idea for them to have gone to fija.org and learned how to properly conduct that business. We have plenty of time to do this if we're truly interested.

 

Personally, I will be printing what I can from their site and I will also make a few purchases as well. I will then, come next summer, during our holiday parades, be marching and passing out this literature. I would like to have an informational booth (natural medicine) at our county fair where I can educate the public on both MMJ with a helping of fija on the side, I will also have other items available for purchase to help offset the cost. Btw, I can use all the help I can get.

 

The only thing that will stop me is my health, period.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Herb Cannabis

[Celliach]

It seems that FIJA.org is a fairly controversial organization and it's members have been charged and convicted of jury tampering. I'm not sure that I would use these people as "experts."

 

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state ofMontana as a 501©(3) not-for-profit organization. FIJA works to educate all citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA educates the public, provides commentary on current jury-related cases, and assists defendants with jury authority strategies—including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws—by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in the summer of 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman and former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, and his friend Don Doig.^[4] They formed FIJA following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

In the U.S., every defendant in a criminal case has the right, under Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be tried by an impartial jury. If the defendant is acquitted, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from putting him or her on trial again. FIJA advises jurors to vote for acquittal if they disagree with the law, even if they believe the defendant committed the crime he or she is charged with. This concept is known as jury nullification.

In August 2005, Nancy Lord, David Brody, Gary Dusselgee and Clay Conrad all retired from the FIJA board at the same time. Julie Sheppard was named as the new Chair, and Don Doig, Phil Graf and Margi Crook were named to the Board.

 

Activism

 

FIJA has lobbied state legislatures to enact legislation that would explicitly elevate the jury's formerly unspoken power to nullify to an openly acknowledged right. On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about Jury Nullification.^[5] FIJA has also proposed abolishing the juror's oath.^[6] FIJA has also launched a "Challenge for Churches" program of jury seminars, focusing on "serving justice through conscience."^[7] FIJA has also launched a "Lunch Break for Liberty" program to encourage people to use their lunch break to hand out FIJA pamphlets.^[8]

FIJA activists have demonstrated outside courthouses and handed out literature to potential jurors in hundreds of cases.^[9] They have generally not been arrested for doing so. FIJA speculates that this may be because "prosecutors have reasoned (correctly) that if they arrest fully informed jury leafleters, the leaflets will have to be given to the leafleter's own jury as evidence."^[10] FIJA and its activists have been involved in litigation over these matters.^[11] Another argument is that since FIJA literature is generic, making no reference to any cases potential jurors may be called upon to serve on, its distribution is not jury tampering.^[12]

In dismissing an activist's lawsuit for false arrest for disorderly conduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated, "Although advocacy of jury nullification could no more be flatly forbidden than advocacy of Marxism, nudism, or Satanism, we cannot think of a more reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech than to forbid its advocacy in a courthouse."^[13]

[edit]Criticism

 

Some prosecutors and law enforcement professionals are strongly opposed to the notion that juries can nullify undesirable laws.^[14] FIJA has been accused of monkeywrenching the justice system.^[12] In 2008, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, quit the organization, stating that it was "so centered on jury nullification that it was ignoring the numerous threats that exist to the jury as an institution,"^[15] as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of cases going to jury trial is continually shrinking.^[16]Executive Director Iloilo M. Jones described his parting comments as sour grapes motivated by his disappointment at not being able to shift FIJA's focus toward preparing attorneys to pursue jury nullification.^[17] FIJA has been condemned as a threat to the system of rule of law rather than rule of men. According to Erick J. Haynie, "it is highly questionable whether jurors should be instructed to 'make' the law when a legislative body has already done the job for them. Congress and the state legislatures have superior expertise, resources and perspective to make macro-social decisions, and much more time to reach a well-reasoned decision than does 'a group of twelve citizens of no particular distinction snatched away from their primary vocations' to spend a couple of days in court.'"^[18]

[edit]Cases

 

[edit]Jerry Begly

 

In 2001, Jerry Begly was dismissed from the jury pool after a bailiff noticed he was passing out copies of the Citizens Rule Book, a jury rights publication. The bailiff confiscated the booklets from the recipients and Begly was charged with contempt of court.^[19] The judge dropped the charges "in the interest of judicial economy."^[20]

[edit]Frank W. Turney

 

In Turney v. State of Alaska, FIJA advocate Frank W. Turney was indicted by a grand jury for jury tampering and criminal trespass, and on interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska allowed the indictment to stand. While a felon in possession of a firearm case was underway, Turney allegedly told a juror, who was wearing a button identifying him as such, to call FIJA's telephone number and learn about his rights. According to court records:

During deliberations the next day, Juror Ellis told other jurors that he had called the number, and that he was changing his vote. He told them that "I can vote what I want." He also told them that they should call the number...The jury announced the next morning that it could not reach a decision, and was excused.

Jury Foreman

Romersberger testified that two jurors had changed their votes to "not guilty" after speaking with Turney or calling the number, leaving the jury deadlocked at eight "guilty" votes to four "not guilty" votes. He testified that the jurors who had switched stated that "their conscience was greatly relieved, and they were going to vote their conscience."

^[21]

After the verdict, Turney called in to a radio talk show to express his opinion that Hall should not have been prosecuted for possessing a concealable firearm since Hall previously had been convicted only of a non-violent felony. Turney's writ of habeas corpus was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[22]

[edit]Julian Heicklen

 

Professor Julian Heicklen has been arrested multiple times by U.S. Department of Homeland Security federal police officers while distributing FIJA literature at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During arrests, he goes limp, falls face first to the ground and once was hospitalized. He has been known to sign his hospital release form as "John Galt" and "Ayn Rand."^[23]

On May 25, 2010 Mr. Heicklen was arrested for refusing to stop handing out pamphlets at the US District Courthouse at 500 Pearl St and was handed over to the NYPD. Due to previous failures to appear in court, he was remanded to Riker's Island until the June 8th, 2010 arraignment.^[24] His arrest reached national attention over the following year due to the First Amendment implications of arresting a citizen for handing out educational pamphlets about jury nullification to prospective jurors outside of a courthouse.^[25] Because most states do not allow lawyers to educate the jury about nullification during a trial, jurors must have independent knowledge about this legal option before the trial.

Currently, no laws prevent an independent party from educating the public about nullification, even if a person distributes educational material within close proximity to a courthouse and even if the material is intended to target jurors. The law only prevents individually targeted jury tampering. Legal experts and attorneys will watch Mr. Heicklen's case closely because if the federal courts allow a prosecution for distributing information to the public, it would be a major new exception to an individual citizen's First Amendment protections. Generally, the Supreme Court has held as sacrosanct the individual right to protest the government through spoken or written word. The Court only allows content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions to political speech, and the Court subjects all such restrictions to strict scrutiny. If the federal courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court allows this prosecution and/or conviction, it would be the first content-based restriction on speech upheld in over a generation of case law.

Mr. Heicklen's case has brought jury nullification into the mainstream, which many defense attorneys applaud. Mr. Heicklen argues that jury nullification functions as just one more check and balance in our system, allowing citizens to not enforce unjust laws imposed by the legislature or pursued by a prosecutor.

A fellow activist, George Donnelly, was arrested for filming on federal property without permission while recording Mr. Heicklen's November 9, 2009 arrest.^[26] Protests were held against his prosecution.^[27] Heicklen has continued his FIJA activism in spite of the arrests.

[edit]Isaac Wright, Jr.

 

Isaac Wright, Jr., was on trial in Somerville, New Jersey and faced life imprisonment for being a drug "kingpin." On the third day of the trial - April 25, 1991 - Juror No. 11, Deborah Isler, caused a note to be sent from the jury to the judge expressing her belief that the state's drug laws were "unfair" and "unjust." Judge Michael Imbriani (who was known by the locals as "Iron Mike") publicly chastised the jury and told them that Isler's excuse was "unacceptable."

According to a Courier News article, "shortly thereafter, jurors could be heard in another room yelling at each other." At about 2:30, the jury came in with another guilty verdict. This time, when Isler was individually polled, she said "I agree." Wright was thereafter sentenced to a mandatory life term, with a parole-ineligibility provision of twenty-five years. ^[28]

[edit]Other

 

A 26-year-old man was acquitted on obstruction of justice charges stemming from his distribution of FIJA literature at the Perry County, Pennsylvania courthouse in 1994.^[29] In 1996, a 53-year-old man was arrested for passing out FIJA pamphlets to prospective jurors at the Clark County, Nevada courthouse.^[30] In 1995, a 51-year-old mother was charged with jury tampering for papering the windshields of cars near the federal courthouse with FIJA literature when her son was on trial and facing a heavy mandatory minimum sentencefor drug offenses.^[31]

[Herb Cannabis]

It seems that FIJA.org is a fairly controversial organization and it's members have been charged and convicted of jury tampering. I'm not sure that I would use these people as "experts."

 

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state ofMontana as a 501©(3) not-for-profit organization. FIJA works to educate all citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA educates the public, provides commentary on current jury-related cases, and assists defendants with jury authority strategies—including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws—by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in the summer of 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman and former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, and his friend Don Doig.^[4] They formed FIJA following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

In the U.S., every defendant in a criminal case has the right, under Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be tried by an impartial jury. If the defendant is acquitted, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from putting him or her on trial again. FIJA advises jurors to vote for acquittal if they disagree with the law, even if they believe the defendant committed the crime he or she is charged with. This concept is known as jury nullification.

In August 2005, Nancy Lord, David Brody, Gary Dusselgee and Clay Conrad all retired from the FIJA board at the same time. Julie Sheppard was named as the new Chair, and Don Doig, Phil Graf and Margi Crook were named to the Board.

 

Activism

 

FIJA has lobbied state legislatures to enact legislation that would explicitly elevate the jury's formerly unspoken power to nullify to an openly acknowledged right. On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about Jury Nullification.^[5] FIJA has also proposed abolishing the juror's oath.^[6] FIJA has also launched a "Challenge for Churches" program of jury seminars, focusing on "serving justice through conscience."^[7] FIJA has also launched a "Lunch Break for Liberty" program to encourage people to use their lunch break to hand out FIJA pamphlets.^[8]

FIJA activists have demonstrated outside courthouses and handed out literature to potential jurors in hundreds of cases.^[9] They have generally not been arrested for doing so. FIJA speculates that this may be because "prosecutors have reasoned (correctly) that if they arrest fully informed jury leafleters, the leaflets will have to be given to the leafleter's own jury as evidence."^[10] FIJA and its activists have been involved in litigation over these matters.^[11] Another argument is that since FIJA literature is generic, making no reference to any cases potential jurors may be called upon to serve on, its distribution is not jury tampering.^[12]

In dismissing an activist's lawsuit for false arrest for disorderly conduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated, "Although advocacy of jury nullification could no more be flatly forbidden than advocacy of Marxism, nudism, or Satanism, we cannot think of a more reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech than to forbid its advocacy in a courthouse."^[13]

[edit]Criticism

 

Some prosecutors and law enforcement professionals are strongly opposed to the notion that juries can nullify undesirable laws.^[14] FIJA has been accused of monkeywrenching the justice system.^[12] In 2008, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, quit the organization, stating that it was "so centered on jury nullification that it was ignoring the numerous threats that exist to the jury as an institution,"^[15] as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of cases going to jury trial is continually shrinking.^[16]Executive Director Iloilo M. Jones described his parting comments as sour grapes motivated by his disappointment at not being able to shift FIJA's focus toward preparing attorneys to pursue jury nullification.^[17] FIJA has been condemned as a threat to the system of rule of law rather than rule of men. According to Erick J. Haynie, "it is highly questionable whether jurors should be instructed to 'make' the law when a legislative body has already done the job for them. Congress and the state legislatures have superior expertise, resources and perspective to make macro-social decisions, and much more time to reach a well-reasoned decision than does 'a group of twelve citizens of no particular distinction snatched away from their primary vocations' to spend a couple of days in court.'"^[18]

[edit]Cases

 

[edit]Jerry Begly

 

In 2001, Jerry Begly was dismissed from the jury pool after a bailiff noticed he was passing out copies of the Citizens Rule Book, a jury rights publication. The bailiff confiscated the booklets from the recipients and Begly was charged with contempt of court.^[19] The judge dropped the charges "in the interest of judicial economy."^[20]

[edit]Frank W. Turney

 

In Turney v. State of Alaska, FIJA advocate Frank W. Turney was indicted by a grand jury for jury tampering and criminal trespass, and on interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska allowed the indictment to stand. While a felon in possession of a firearm case was underway, Turney allegedly told a juror, who was wearing a button identifying him as such, to call FIJA's telephone number and learn about his rights. According to court records:

During deliberations the next day, Juror Ellis told other jurors that he had called the number, and that he was changing his vote. He told them that "I can vote what I want." He also told them that they should call the number...The jury announced the next morning that it could not reach a decision, and was excused.

Jury Foreman

Romersberger testified that two jurors had changed their votes to "not guilty" after speaking with Turney or calling the number, leaving the jury deadlocked at eight "guilty" votes to four "not guilty" votes. He testified that the jurors who had switched stated that "their conscience was greatly relieved, and they were going to vote their conscience."

^[21]

After the verdict, Turney called in to a radio talk show to express his opinion that Hall should not have been prosecuted for possessing a concealable firearm since Hall previously had been convicted only of a non-violent felony. Turney's writ of habeas corpus was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[22]

[edit]Julian Heicklen

 

Professor Julian Heicklen has been arrested multiple times by U.S. Department of Homeland Security federal police officers while distributing FIJA literature at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During arrests, he goes limp, falls face first to the ground and once was hospitalized. He has been known to sign his hospital release form as "John Galt" and "Ayn Rand."^[23]

On May 25, 2010 Mr. Heicklen was arrested for refusing to stop handing out pamphlets at the US District Courthouse at 500 Pearl St and was handed over to the NYPD. Due to previous failures to appear in court, he was remanded to Riker's Island until the June 8th, 2010 arraignment.^[24] His arrest reached national attention over the following year due to the First Amendment implications of arresting a citizen for handing out educational pamphlets about jury nullification to prospective jurors outside of a courthouse.^[25] Because most states do not allow lawyers to educate the jury about nullification during a trial, jurors must have independent knowledge about this legal option before the trial.

Currently, no laws prevent an independent party from educating the public about nullification, even if a person distributes educational material within close proximity to a courthouse and even if the material is intended to target jurors. The law only prevents individually targeted jury tampering. Legal experts and attorneys will watch Mr. Heicklen's case closely because if the federal courts allow a prosecution for distributing information to the public, it would be a major new exception to an individual citizen's First Amendment protections. Generally, the Supreme Court has held as sacrosanct the individual right to protest the government through spoken or written word. The Court only allows content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions to political speech, and the Court subjects all such restrictions to strict scrutiny. If the federal courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court allows this prosecution and/or conviction, it would be the first content-based restriction on speech upheld in over a generation of case law.

Mr. Heicklen's case has brought jury nullification into the mainstream, which many defense attorneys applaud. Mr. Heicklen argues that jury nullification functions as just one more check and balance in our system, allowing citizens to not enforce unjust laws imposed by the legislature or pursued by a prosecutor.

A fellow activist, George Donnelly, was arrested for filming on federal property without permission while recording Mr. Heicklen's November 9, 2009 arrest.^[26] Protests were held against his prosecution.^[27] Heicklen has continued his FIJA activism in spite of the arrests.

[edit]Isaac Wright, Jr.

 

Isaac Wright, Jr., was on trial in Somerville, New Jersey and faced life imprisonment for being a drug "kingpin." On the third day of the trial - April 25, 1991 - Juror No. 11, Deborah Isler, caused a note to be sent from the jury to the judge expressing her belief that the state's drug laws were "unfair" and "unjust." Judge Michael Imbriani (who was known by the locals as "Iron Mike") publicly chastised the jury and told them that Isler's excuse was "unacceptable."

According to a Courier News article, "shortly thereafter, jurors could be heard in another room yelling at each other." At about 2:30, the jury came in with another guilty verdict. This time, when Isler was individually polled, she said "I agree." Wright was thereafter sentenced to a mandatory life term, with a parole-ineligibility provision of twenty-five years. ^[28]

[edit]Other

 

A 26-year-old man was acquitted on obstruction of justice charges stemming from his distribution of FIJA literature at the Perry County, Pennsylvania courthouse in 1994.^[29] In 1996, a 53-year-old man was arrested for passing out FIJA pamphlets to prospective jurors at the Clark County, Nevada courthouse.^[30] In 1995, a 51-year-old mother was charged with jury tampering for papering the windshields of cars near the federal courthouse with FIJA literature when her son was on trial and facing a heavy mandatory minimum sentencefor drug offenses.^[31]

 

You are correct, mistakes are made. They are made by every entity out there including ours. No one is perfect, you can't judge an organization by a few bad apples. At least, I hope this is true.

[ozzrokk]

So MMJ activists tainted the jury pool and PB is claiming it was the judge messing withthe jury, not the activists.

 

Sheesh! I'm on the side of the activists, but you have to do everything legally. By talking to the jury the activists may well have gotten someone convicted. How does that help them?

 

 

Some people are just too thick.

[Celliach]

You are correct, mistakes are made. They are made by every entity out there including ours. No one is perfect, you can't judge an organization by a few bad apples. At least, I hope this is true.

I wouldn't judge them by bad apples, I'd judge them more by this criticism:

Some prosecutors and law enforcement professionals are strongly opposed to the notion that juries can nullify undesirable laws.^[14] FIJA has been accused of monkeywrenching the justice system.^[12] In 2008, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, quit the organization, stating that it was "so centered on jury nullification that it was ignoring the numerous threats that exist to the jury as an institution,"^[15] as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of cases going to jury trial is continually shrinking.^[16]Executive Director Iloilo M. Jones described his parting comments as sour grapes motivated by his disappointment at not being able to shift FIJA's focus toward preparing attorneys to pursue jury nullification.^[17] FIJA has been condemned as a threat to the system of rule of law rather than rule of men. According to Erick J. Haynie, "it is highly questionable whether jurors should be instructed to 'make' the law when a legislative body has already done the job for them. Congress and the state legislatures have superior expertise, resources and perspective to make macro-social decisions, and much more time to reach a well-reasoned decision than does 'a group of twelve citizens of no particular distinction snatched away from their primary vocations' to spend a couple of days in court.'"^[18]

 

Also, 'm not a Libertarian, and this is a libertarian organization. Because of decorum, I won't go into why I wouldn't follow, trust, or even believe any libertarian group without fully vetting it first.