Denver man charged with seven felonies for handing out ‘jury nullification’ fliers outside court

a reply to: soulshn

Kind of sad in a way that Mr. Iannicelli isn't ever going to get called
for jury duty after this; because he's on the troublemaker list for
sure now. And he's just the kind of informed fellow we need in the box.

You have to remember too this is the same state where Patterson said
"I will not allow the Constitution to be mentioned ..." in the early 00's.
So much for the supreme law of the land... at least in an Admiralty Court.

I was reading the Wiki about jury nullification, because I'd never heard of it until this thread, and it seems as though the courts in the US really hate it, and will do anything to prevent the jury even knowing about it:

In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[36] In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[37] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[38] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 'United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[39]

a reply to: Sharted

Information control: one of the oldest forms of tyranny.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are trying to get him for influencing the jurors. In this case seven of them.

Which is a bunch of bull.

a reply to: soulshn

Jury nullification occurred the most before the American Revolution. After independence it was primarily used in slave cases.

SCOTUS / Federal Appeals circuits have ruled that judges are not required to notify / instruct jurors with Jury nullification.


Federal Jury Nullification - SCOTUS ruling against Federal Judges being required to notify Jurors
* - Sparf v. United States

Several Federal appeals districts have ruled judges are not required to notify of the ability for Jury nullification, and those rulings also apply to State Courts / Judges. The Practice itself is a problem because it does the one thing a lot of people on this site bitch about - legislation by the courts. Jury nullification allows a judgment of the law in question and not the person charged under the law.

Why is this a dangerous area?
Jury nullification was used a lot during the civil rights movement to acquit white people who were charged with murdering black people.

Jury nullification ignores the law and allows a person to decide based on their own personally held belief on what they think of the law in question, which is problematic.

Allowing jury nullification opens the door to massive problems. Secondly it violates the laws established concerning officers of the court (lawyers / judges / etc) in terms of upholding the law.

In this case in Colorado they violated Colorado law via jury tampering statutes. Instructions to the jury on how deliberations work and what can and cannot be considered resides solely with the judge.

(C.R.S. 18-8-609 (2014))18-8-609. Jury-tampering

(1) A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.

(1.5) A person commits jury-tampering if he knowingly participates in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors.

(2) Jury-tampering is a class 5 felony; except that jury-tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony.

Colorado Revised Statutes

The argument around "common law" is fail since it is trumped by statutory law.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I got that but I do not see the issue. We had a law school drop out on our panel and he is the one who brought it up during deliberation.

Is there any doubt how sick this system is that we live in, or how little humanity is left in those that turn the cogs and wheels?

They even try to say that they stop information about jury nullification because of their ethics... what a joke. See, they screw us over because it's the right thing to do! Tons of integrity there for sure. I'm glad these brave people are here to do the thankless job of reaming the average citizen and then having us thank them for it.

Those people have an oath to the constitution that overrides any silly "law" and if the state refuses to uphold an individuals right then the responsibility falls on the jury to refuse to prosecute that unjust law. This whole country is a joke. A worn out tired one at that.

All the cops, the judges, the lawmakers, the politicians, these creeps in goofy costumes will be remembered by history very very badly. You can still be evil even if you think you aren't, even if fellow tools tell you that you aren't. Even if you tricked millions of retards into thinking you aren't. You are.

I wonder, did any notion of liberty EVER actually exist in this country or was it some sort of fantasy sold to immigrants who just wanted more money for their labor? IT'S A TRAP!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Sremmos80

I got that but I do not see the issue. We had a law school drop out on our panel and he is the one who brought it up during deliberation.

Its totalitarianism. Kinda like when you don't let your populace learn to read. Keep 'em ignorant, keep 'em subjugated.

I hope i get on a jury, unless the person hurt someone else. NOT GUILTY!!!

(Hacker uses only a computer and wits and steals digital numbers from a bank without ANYONE getting hurt)
NOT GUILTY!!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soulshn

Jury nullification occurred the most before the American Revolution. After independence it was primarily used in slave cases.

SCOTUS / Federal Appeals circuits have ruled that judges are not required to notify / instruct jurors with Jury nullification.


Federal Jury Nullification - SCOTUS ruling against Federal Judges being required to notify Jurors
* - Sparf v. United States

Several Federal appeals districts have ruled judges are not required to notify of the ability for Jury nullification. The Practice itself is a problem because it does the one thing a lot of people on this site bitch about - legislation by the courts. Jury nullification allows a judgment of the law in question and not the person charged under the law.

Why is this a dangerous area?
Jury nullification was used a lot during the civil rights movement to acquit white people who were charged with murdering black people.

Jury nullification ignores the law and allows a person to decide based on their own personally held belief on what they think of the law in question, which is problematic.

Allowing jury nullification opens the door to massive problems. Secondly it violates the laws established concerning officers of the court (lawyers / judges / etc) in terms of upholding the law.

In this case in Colorado they violated Colorado law via jury tampering statutes. Instructions to the jury on how deliberations work and what can and cannot be considered resides solely with the judge.

(C.R.S. 18-8-609 (2014))18-8-609. Jury-tampering

(1) A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.

(1.5) A person commits jury-tampering if he knowingly participates in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors.

(2) Jury-tampering is a class 5 felony; except that jury-tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony.

Colorado Revised Statutes

So were you involved in the vote to make it an offense to give valid and non-private information to people?

No you weren't. It was some random guy in a courtroom who wasn't elected who decided something is now law because it seemed like a good idea for that specific case. Now millions are living under it. An ever increasing, massively growing list of laws and statues and orders and decrees that must be upheld by the populace or else you go straight to rape dungeon. Oh but the black president is letting out some minorities for non-violent drug offenses so that means our justice system works. Sorry.

And of course, any sort of recourse the average person has against tyranny is instantly tied into RACISM! Congrats on that sir! Well done! Want to nullify unjust laws? You're probably just a racist!

Why do we even need comedy shows and movies any more with the state of things.

a reply to: James1982

No under Colorado law his actions are considered jury tampering.

As I stated common law does not supersede Statutory law. This is one of those areas where a person thinks they know the law when in reality they have no clue.

Based on your comments about non elected you apparently are not knowledgeable with the Supreme Court Rulings or appeals court rulings on this topic. Or are you ignoring them because they don't support your position?

Let me help - The elected officials in the State of Colorado passed a law making his actions illegal. Or are you also ignoring that because it doesn't support your position?

I guarantee any person in this forum who supports jury nullification who finds themselves on the fuzzy end of the lollipop in a court action will bitch up a storm about that action.

Yeah....

Jury nullification is one of those things the court system would rather people not play around with. It can throw entire cases and prolong trials. It's an interesting concept, and one that shouldn't be toyed with lightly.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Sure, they will threaten him with all kinds of stuff to get him to take a plea..I wonder when they start burning books?

a reply to: soulshn

It's surprising that every defense attorney doesn't start with explaining Jury nullification in the opening statements of controversial cases.

I imagine a lot of drug use cases could be thrown out with this simple principle. Not many people like to see drug addicts put in jail, because many people see what a waste of money and time this is on our system.

If enough cases were nullified the laws would have to change.

Drug addicts need rehabilitation not jail. Drug makers and sellers ok, but the drug user going to jail makes no since.

It's similar to prostitutes going to jail while the pimps roam free. Some laws just don't work and end up vilifying the wrong people.

Add - personally I would rather see a few guilty people set free than many people be subjected to unjust laws with unjust punishments. Freedom is better than Tyranny.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Defense Attorneys cant raise nullification in their closing. As officers of the court they are required to uphold the law. Only a judge can give jury instructions in terms of what they can or cannot consider.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sharted

Information control: one of the oldest forms of tyranny.

That's why the saying goes "knowledge is power".

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: soulshn

It's surprising that every defense attorney doesn't start with explaining Jury nullification in the opening statements of controversial cases.

I imagine a lot of drug use cases could be thrown out with this simple principle. Not many people like to see drug addicts put in jail, because many people see what a waste of money and time this is on our system.

If enough cases were nullified the laws would have to change.

Drug addicts need rehabilitation not jail. Drug makers and sellers ok, but the drug user going to jail makes no since.

It's similar to prostitutes going to jail while the pimps roam free. Some laws just don't work and end up vilifying the wrong people.

Add - personally I would rather see a few guilty people set free than many people be subjected to unjust laws with unjust punishments. Freedom is better than Tyranny.

Sparf v United States

In cases past, it was decided that Judges must inform jurors of their ability to not convict based on the quality of the law the defendant is being charged under. In Sparf v. United States the Justices established that, in the federal courts, jurors only had the right to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court.[4]

originally posted by: starfoxxx
(Hacker uses only a computer and wits and steals digital numbers from a bank without ANYONE getting hurt)
NOT GUILTY!!!

I wonder how quickly you would render a not guilty verdict if your information was stolen from the bank.

This is a JOB for!!


Anonymous..

Anonymous (group)
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for those who clarified the legal code. However I don't agree with our legal code on many issues. I think we do a horrible job when it comes to having our laws represent the views of the people.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said the people should question and change the legal code as necessary every 19 years. Many laws have proven complete failures but we end up stuck with them, because we have no adequate system in place for the voice of the people to be heard when it comes to changing laws.

Many cases are determined on out dated cases that simply no longer reflect the will of the people. The opinion of the people 50 years ago should not hamstring progressive ideology.