Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

jail time for jury nullification flyers


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

Michigan man gets jail time for distributing jury nullification flyers outside courthouse 

A former pastor has been sentenced to eight weekends in jail for jury tampering after distributing pamphlets on a sidewalk in front of a Michigan courthouse. The man argued he was exercising his free speech rights while advocating for jury nullification. 

 

For those who don't know we Americans have the ability to tell the courts we wont prosecute someone for violating a stupid law. The courts really really dont like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would it be asking too much to have all Judges screened?

Not for Drug abuse, altho that would be nice too. No, what I am asking for is something to test their sanity

The Power always seems to go straight to their self-infatuated little minds. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Michigan man gets jail time for distributing jury nullification flyers outside courthouse 

A former pastor has been sentenced to eight weekends in jail for jury tampering after distributing pamphlets on a sidewalk in front of a Michigan courthouse. The man argued he was exercising his free speech rights while advocating for jury nullification. 

 

For those who don't know we Americans have the ability to tell the courts we wont prosecute someone for violating a stupid law. The courts really really dont like that. 

Could you explain more about this ?  I served on jury twice , once as jury foreman (spokesperson)  - in Australia .

 I have also been in Supreme Court as 'defendant'  - I  won,  they (  The Attorney General ) appealed, I won again) .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

Would it be asking too much to have all Judges screened?

Not for Drug abuse, altho that would be nice too. No, what I am asking for is something to test their sanity

The Power always seems to go straight to their self-infatuated little minds. 

 

My 3 experiences in court with Judges was great.  One experience out of court  (with  someone  who I didnt realise was a judge ) was, to say the least ....  'bent ' !

I have heard bad stories here  though .     

The 'legal arena' takes a 'special person'  to be able to navgate well through it !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Could you explain more about this ?  I served on jury twice , once as jury foreman (spokesperson)  - in Australia .

 I have also been in Supreme Court as 'defendant'  - I  won,  they (  The Attorney General ) appealed, I won again) .

 

Basically the jury can say "yeah he did it, but we're not going to punish him for it".

Im not positive of its roots but as a kid in school I recall being taught that it was a very bad thing because it was used alot by juries as a way to let people accused of violent racist acts off the hook from the post civil war reconstruction period all the way through the 1960's civil rights movement. 

In today's world I see real value in the use of that tactic however, especially in things like marijuana possession cases where the law clearly is just stupid, or really in my opinion any case where the law is basically there just for profit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Basically the jury can say "yeah he did it, but we're not going to punish him for it".

Im not positive of its roots but as a kid in school I recall being taught that it was a very bad thing because it was used alot by juries as a way to let people accused of violent racist acts off the hook from the post civil war reconstruction period all the way through the 1960's civil rights movement. 

In today's world I see real value in the use of that tactic however, especially in things like marijuana possession cases where the law clearly is just stupid, or really in my opinion any case where the law is basically there just for profit. 

I am pretty sure a jury here cannot do that, they are resistricted to guilty or not guilty, punishment is a judges decision.  They can find someone not guilty, if they choose to, if it seems unfair or trivial, and have done so, to a judges frustration - they are supposed to find guilty, if they think that, and then hope the judge will be lenient  if trivial or .. 

once they found a cop not guilty when he executed a pedo who threatened his kid ... interesting legal story, maybe more later   gotta split , I  am half way through cooking dinner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jury nullification is a tricky aspect of American law. A unanimous jury verdict to acquit is the end of a criminal case: our constitution forbids retrial of a defendant on the same charges. Without changing that aspect of the constitution, there is no way to prevent a jury from deciding a criminal case based on its dislike for the law that was violated.

On the other hand, jurors are given instructions by the judge. Those instructions do not include advice about jury nullification - jurors are told to apply the law to the factual evidence that was presented during the trial. Period. ( = "Don't ask, don't tell" as far as nullification goes)

And of course, there is a kicker. Jury trials are a restraint upon the power of the state to use the criminal justice system to make political plays. America was born in revolution against a powerful empire that sometimes used its courts that way against American rebels.

Imagine you were on a jury where the defendant was Rosa Parks, a black woman, who refused to give up her seat in the "whites only" section of the bus. You do not doubt that she really did that, and the judge has informed you that if she did, then she broke the law. Mmm... in this hypothetical I'd vote for acquital anyway. The law is wrong, not Ms Parks.

I don't know the particulars of the Michigan case. He does have the right to discuss any aspect of his government's activities, including jury nullification (as I am doing now, and in the previous paragraph advocated its use - sometime). The law can place reasonable restrictions on the time and place of speech, however, and maybe at the courthouse door could be placed off-limits (I don't know that, however). I hope the guy appeals. It would be great to have more clarity (and publcity) about this aspect of the law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.