An Ugly and VERY Dangerous Reality

Nobody wants to discuss it. It's inflammatory. It's dangerous as hell. Discussing it will plant seeds. It must be avoided like the plague. It is counter to the rule of law, the assumption of guilty until proven innocent. After a trial the judge charges the jury. Juries are instructed not to make decisions based on sympathy for the defendant, only by the facts of the case. They're permitted to discredit any or all of testimony if the veracity of the witness is called into question.

 Liberals are handing out fliers encouraging others turn our criminal justice system into a runaway train.

It's juror nullification.

Juror nullification in simple terms is throwing out the rule of law by finding someone who is technically guilty but does not deserve punishment.  It has a place--a person is wrongfully charged and convicted and found "guilty." The accused may have been railroaded based on race, religion, politics. In this case, juror nullification has a place in righting a horrible wrong.


In these cases the person is technically guilty but only because he or she had been scapegoated. But a good defense attorney should be able to convince a reasonable jury that his/her client has been railroaded and present facts to demonstrate that. There really is no place for jury nullification.

There have been times in US history where it had a place (eg. civil rights movement). But a racist society chose not to and seemed more than willing to sentence a technically guilty person to prison or death, or reverse a law perceived as unjust (think Prohibition).

Today we are seeing juror nullification in a more alarming fashion.

It is also a tool in the hands of Anarchists and liberals to right a perceived wrong in the name of social justice. 

OJ Simpson had a history of domestic abuse of his wife Nicole. She's murdered. There is a mountain of evidence against him. But a predominately black jury thinks he's been railroaded and so despite being actually guilty, not technically guilty, they acquitted him.

Expressing support for jury nullification is a surefire way to avoid jury duty. But how many people will admit that? Without knowing the term, how many juries can and will employ it?

We live in a PC world, a world in which jury nullification can be dangerous. Terribly dangerous and unjust. Some consider it juror tampering.

Unfortunately, it is so dangerous, so taboo in fact that few will even discuss it, but it is rearing its ugly head. Can we ignore the danger of it?

*******
NEW YORK, March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge said on Wednesday that advocating for jury nullification could pose a threat to the judicial system, particularly if it takes place close to potential jurors.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood made the comments in the case of Julian Heicklen, of Teaneck, New Jersey, a retired, 80-year old chemistry professor who was charged and arrested after distributing pamphlets advocating jury nullification outside federal court in Manhattan.


The pamphlets called on potential jurors to follow their conscience in returning a verdict, and urged them to find a defendant not-guilty if they disagreed with the law in question or the government's conduct in the case.


"Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of government," said one pamphlet, submitted by the defense as part of a brief. "It is not the duty of the jury to uphold the law. It is the jury's duty to see that justice is done."


In defending Heicklen, attorney Steven Statsinger told the court that jury nullification "really is not a serious threat to the integrity of the system."

"I disagree with that," responded Judge Wood, who brought up the possibility of jurors voting to acquit a person based on ideological beliefs, such as "pro-life protesters who believe that it should be lawful to kill an abortion provider, an eye for an eye, a life for a life."


Heicklen, who is representing himself with the aide of Statsinger, is charged with one count of jury tampering, which carries up to six months in prison.


Prosecutors say that jury nullification is unlawful, and that by encouraging it, Heicklen was undermining the good functioning of the court system.
Prosecutors also argue that Heicklen could not claim free speech protection because he was handing out pamphlets on federal property -- the plaza at the 500 Pearl Street entrance of the Manhattan Federal Courthouse -- and was specifically targeting potential jurors.
"The thing here that is so troubling to the government is that the message... undermines the fundamental fairness of our system," Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein said at Wednesday's hearing. "If a person is on the steps of a courthouse and is trying to influence jurors, that is a crime."
Mermelstein conceded that if Heicklen was "further from the courthouse, the less likely he is to be violating the statute."


Statsinger responded that the plaza in question was a public forum where "expressive activity" routinely takes place and that Heicklen's activity was "pure advocacy" not aimed at any particular juror or trial.

The case is U.S. v. Julian Heicklen, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 10-1154.

For the government: Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein.
For Heicklen: Heicklen is representing himself and is assisted by Sabrina Shroff and Steven Statsinger of the Federal Defenders of New York.

(Reporting By Basil Katz)