3 ms·
> 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 inf
by 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.