5 ms·
When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very int
by unoti 15y ago
When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.
- gwern 15y agoCourt-appointed counsel isn't known for its quality, and when your own lawyer is apparently contemptuous of jury nullifications ("silly leaflets"), it's not looking too good.
- dfxm12 15y agoI don't think the lawyers are implying that they are contemptuous of jury nullification with this strategy. I think they are trying to downplay the impact of the leaflets, playing their client off as a goofy old man with silly ideas that everyone would ignore like a beggar.
- redthrowaway 15y agoI imagine a good lawyer would argue both that the leaflets were harmless, and that it was constitutionally protected speech, as a way of covering all angles.
- MaysonL 15y agoAnd I would also hope that his lawyer(s) will get the leaflets entered into evidence, so that the jury can read them.
- bhousel 15y agoGuy should dismiss his counsel and go pro se. 99% of the time I'd say that's a crazy idea, but in this situation I'm not so sure...
- andylei 15y ago> shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty that depends on whether or not he is guilty of jury tampering. wikipedia says that it is "attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial". i don't have all the details, but it sounds kind of like that's exactly what that guy is trying to do.
- lutorm 15y agoThe article didn't argue that he wasn't guilty of that, it argued that constitutional free speech rights take precedence over it.
- DougWebb 15y agoThat's not at all what he was doing. He wasn't trying to influence a jury, he was trying to educate them to let them know about a third option they have. It's still up to them whether or not to use it. He also wasn't influencing any particular jury, or an active jury. He was giving leaflets to potential jurors.
- jrockway 15y agoThe author of this article is doing the same thing. The law should be worded so as to refer to a specific juror and a specific trial. If I call Juror #5 at home and tell him I'll kill his family if he convicts, that's jury tampering. If I'm a writer handing out a leaflet about the history of jury nullification, then that's free speech. Even if I do it near a courthouse. The courts have ruled that free speech should be limited in some cases, but yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and educating fellow citizens about our legal system are pretty different cases, even if the second one could influence the results of a trial.
- WiseWeasel 15y agoThat's missing the point. The wording of the law is irrelevant if the jury considers it invalid or unjustified; that's the whole purpose of jury nullification.
- forgotAgain 15y agoI think that's why prosecutors try to scare defendants into plea bargains by charging them with the maximum offenses they can possibly justify. It's better for the prosecutors in these types of cases for the jury to not have a say.
- timwiseman 15y agoI've had the pleasure of speaking to a couple of prosecutors and am in law school right now. They definitely try to get plea bargains, but it is more a matter of effeciency. In any place with a remotely high population density, a prosecutor normally has more cases lined up than they can really do justice for and many more that they are deliberately choosing not to go forward with at all, not because they don't have plenty of evidence, but because they are focusing on the more significant cases. Getting a plea bargain is simply much faster for the prosecutor and much cheaper for the government than a full trial.
- JoshTriplett 15y agoSounds like we need more prosecutors, or fewer laws, or both.