Must not let juries know of their legal right not to convict if they consider the law to be an oppressive one
"On March 2 the ACLU filed suit on behalf of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) against a Florida judge who banned free speech outside the courthouses in his jurisdiction.
... Meanwhile, veteran rights activist Julian Heicklen has announced he will violate the ban on March 11 by distributing jury rights pamphlets outside the Orlando courthouse as a direct challenge against the judge's Administrative Order banning such activity."
Source
16 comments:
Why would Libertarians align themselves with hard-core radical leftists? As for the judges order, it's clearly unconstitutional.
"Why would Libertarians align themselves with hard-core radical leftists?"
In this case, it was the rational thing to do. Duh.
As for the judges order, it's clearly unconstitutional.
The judge has a statutory responsibility to make sure trials are run smoothly. Florida Statute 918.12 makes it illegal to tamper with a juror or perspective juror.
918.12 Tampering with jurors.—Any person who influences the judgment or decision of any grand or petit juror on any matter, question, cause, or proceeding which may be pending, or which may by law be brought, before him or her as such juror, with intent to obstruct the administration of justice, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Given that the people are trying to influence a juror or perspective juror in a trial or perspective trial, the order is not "clearly unconstitutional."
"Given that the people are trying to influence a juror or perspective juror in a trial or perspective trial, the order is not "clearly unconstitutional."
Depends on whether or not they do it "with intent to obstruct the administration of justice" as described.
Absent that clause, the prosecution and defense attorneys, for example, would also be guilty. And even if you or I might consider nullification to, at times, constitute obstruction, what actually matters is the subjective belief of those distributing the pamphlets.
In a word, wow! Here we have someone who is trying to exercise his free speech rights to tamper with a jury. I've been on a jury before. One reason they give you a badge is so people don't talk to you about the case or their interpretation of the law surrounding the case. This person is not a juror and should not be speaking to jurors regarding the subject.
When you are on a jury, the judge orders jurors to not discuss the case or even read any commentary about it. Would this likewise be a restriction on free speech?
Depends on whether or not they do it "with intent to obstruct the administration of justice" as described.
You don't think that arguing for jury nullification, which by its very definition is outside the law is intent?
Absent that clause, the prosecution and defense attorneys, for example, would also be guilty.
The lawyers are arguing within the law. Jury nullification, which is what this group wants, is outside the law and outside of the "administration of justice."
"You don't think that arguing for jury nullification, which by its very definition is outside the law is intent?"
JN has a long (and controversial) history. It is not to be used lightly, if at all, but is a last resort that has been used - and subsequently honored by the legal system - in the past, so it is not entirely "outside the law" at all ... and not entirely inside it, either.
But if one believes it to be a *tool* for the administration of justice, then one cannot promote it with "intent to obstruct the administration of justice." That's splitting hairs, sure, but splitting hairs is what the law does.
It's very much one of those, "you damn well better be right if you use it" tools, isn't it?
In general I oppose JN, but I can also conceive of cases where it would be justified, however unusual or rare those cases may be. And to speak of it is no crime at all, IMHO. Heck, we just did that here, both you and I, and our comments are wholly accessible to any juror.
jjr,
My reply to anon 12:53 was deleted? C'est la vie.
I didn't delete anything
I did rescue a comment from the spam box
Was I being tampered with in my high school civics classes? I certainly was, especially since they never taught me about jn.
-L
in the past, so it is not entirely "outside the law" at all ... and not entirely inside it, either.
It is totally outside the law. The fact that it is used within the legal system does not make it outside the law.
But if one believes it to be a *tool* for the administration of justice, then one cannot promote it with "intent to obstruct the administration of justice.
By definition, one cannot break the law in the administration of justice which is predicated on law.
jjr,
"I did rescue a comment from the spam box"
Thx. Pls understand that I am not ranting against you or your site or anything like that; I just think that you, as the site owner, need to know when your software is being user-hostile.
P.S. Out of curiosity, what aspect in particular of my comment of 2:48pm caused it to be tagged as spam in the first place?
"It is totally outside the law. The fact that it is used within the legal system does not make it outside the law."
Those two sentences totally contradict each other. You sure you didn't say the exact opposite of what you meant in one of them?
Those two sentences totally contradict each other. You sure you didn't say the exact opposite of what you meant in one of them?
No, they are not contradictory.
It is illegal in Florida for a person or a lawyer to argue or present the idea of "jury nullification." It is illegal for it to be brought up in the jury room.
Jury nullification is illegal here in the Sunshine State.
However, some juries do use jury nullification in the state of Florida. The "problem" is that you can't prove jury nullification took place or whether a jury simply returned a verdict of "not guilty" because they felt the defendant was actually not guilty.
So jury nullification exists within the system, even though it is against the law.
Stinky
I imagine your comment was tossed in the spam box because it was long and had a link in it
Google's algorithms are pretty good but they do goof sometimes
Post a Comment