Man convicted of jury tampering for handing out jury nullification pamphlets

CaliFFL

Informing people of jury nullification can lead to a lawless society...

Wood's attorney argued that handing out pamphlets with general information -- nothing mentioning a specific case -- is free speech.

But Mecosta County prosecutors say the information in the pamphlets misrepresented the legal system and could lead to a lawless society.

Initially, Wood was charged with felony obstruction of justice and jury tampering. The felony charge was dropped in March 2016.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/06/man_who_passed_out_pamphlets_a.html

Jermanator

It sounds like they violated the guy's 1A rights by prosecuting him in the first place. Now that he suffered harm, he has standing.

john9001

appeal.

So he tampered with the jury by informing them of the law? Isn't that what judges do?

john9001

Jury Nullification
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.

sgtrock21

Wambli Ska wrote: »

AND it is the entire reason we have trial and verdeicts handed out by a jury of your PEERS! The **** knew that writing perfect law was impossible and a man's guilt or innocence was best judged by his peers, as opposed to a government official, so they could exercise common sense where the law/government failed.

That is what I was taught. I've only served on 2 juries and arrived at my final verdicts using those principles.

tennmike

john9001 wrote: »

Jury Nullification
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.

Judges now charge the jury by telling them that if the facts of the case are true then they MUST find the defendant guilty. This was not always so. I distinctly remember my first couple of times on jury when the judge told us that were to 'judge the facts AND the law'. This was back in the late 1970s, and this was common before judges started getting too big for their robes.

Federal judge in Chattanooga was talking to a bunch of us potential jurors after a case was settled at the last moment. He explained court like this. The prosecution and defense are like opposing football teams, and the judge is the referee that keeps things moving and makes sure the rules of the game are observed. Then he stated that the jury was actually the most powerful of the ones assembled in the court because they were the ones that decided not only guilt or innocence, but also if the law was fair and justly applied to the case, and if the law applied was too harsh for the crime that the jury could find a verdict of not guilty by reason that the law was unjust, unfair, or in any way unreasonably harsh given the facts of the case and the crime. He also went into some of the history of U.S. civil and criminal courts explaining how the system was set up and refined.

He also went into the subject of jury nullification, and said that it was a valid jury response. And he gave a few examples of when it would be valid in criminal and civil cases. It's rare indeed to find a judge that will take the time to tell the people selected as potential jurors such things.

JasonMPD

tennmike wrote: »

Judges now charge the jury by telling them that if the facts of the case are true then they MUST find the defendant guilty. This was not always so. I distinctly remember my first couple of times on jury when the judge told us that were to 'judge the facts AND the law'. This was back in the late 1970s, and this was common before judges started getting too big for their robes.

Federal judge in Chattanooga was talking to a bunch of us potential jurors after a case was settled at the last moment. He explained court like this. The prosecution and defense are like opposing football teams, and the judge is the referee that keeps things moving and makes sure the rules of the game are observed. Then he stated that the jury was actually the most powerful of the ones assembled in the court because they were the ones that decided not only guilt or innocence, but also if the law was fair and justly applied to the case, and if the law applied was too harsh for the crime that the jury could find a verdict of not guilty by reason that the law was unjust, unfair, or in any way unreasonably harsh given the facts of the case and the crime. He also went into some of the history of U.S. civil and criminal courts explaining how the system was set up and refined.

He also went into the subject of jury nullification, and said that it was a valid jury response. And he gave a few examples of when it would be valid in criminal and civil cases. It's rare indeed to find a judge that will take the time to tell the people selected as potential jurors such things.

Here in Florida juries must follow specific jury instructions regarding sentencing. Judges here don't lead with an ultimatum, at least not so far as I've seen.

horselips

In Arizona, empanelled jurors are administered an oath that precludes the option of jury nullification. I have served as a juror on 3 superior court criminal trials, 1 civil trial, and 1 federal criminal trial. Fortunately, none of the cases involved caused me to consider voting a nullification verdict ... yet.