It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
.....otherwise, no, I don't agree with your stance that every single case should always be thrown out because of jury nullification.
You know, for someone who doesn't believe that laws exist, you sure do hide a lot behind case law, you are a terrible anarchist.
The truth to the matter is these people are trying to influence jury members to legislate from the bench.
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
You cite jury nullification as an example. And I say that it should be a rare instance where jury nullification is used, you attest that it should be used as a matter of course for every single case that is brought before a jury.
Since you are playing prosecutor, it is your responsibility to prove mens rea. Simply asserting it is not enough. The O.P. has all ready linked Fully Informed Jury Association, if you have not done your due diligence and taken the time to look at that site, then you are making one heck of a lousy prosecutor, my friend. FIJA's website is rife with materials and links to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook as well as other outlets that they use to inform the public. They standing in front of courthouses is just one of many places they stand to get this information out there. You are not going to be able to prove mens rea in this case Wuk, no matter how loud and how long you scream it.
The fact that they are passing out information to potential jurors near the courthouse is prima facie evidence of juror tampering.
Jury tampering is the crime of attempting to influence a jury through other means than the evidence presented in court, such as conversations about the caseoutside the court, offering bribes, making threats or asking acquaintances to interfere with a juror.
A person commits the crime of jury tampering if, with intent to influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision or other action in the case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a jurorother than as part of the proceedings in the trial of the case. Jury tampering may be committed by conducting conversations about the case outside the court, offering bribes, making threats or asking acquaintances to communicate with a juror.
Some jury tampering cases have involved physical barriers or obstructions to the courthouse, and protests or pamphleting in the courthouse area. At issue in such cases is the conflict between First Amendment protections of expression and coercive influencing of jurors. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962) held that a state may not punish out-of-court statements critical of judicial actions, absent special circumstances showing an extremely high likelihood of serious interference with the administration of justice. It approved the clear and present danger standard used in Bridges v. California, Pennekamp v. Florida, and Craig v. Harney. Id., at 314 U.S. 252 (1941); 328 U.S. 331 (1946); and 331 U.S. 367 (1947), respectively.
(I do disagree with the whole idea that everyone should be acquitted of every crime despite the evidence against them.)
But maybe your right, maybe there are no laws and natural law of survival of the fittest rules the world.
A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.
But to hide behind case law to prove that there are no laws? Seriously? Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?
Frankly I am tired of arguing with you, end, B Saint, and mnemeth on the horror show you want this country to be. Between the four of you, this country would look like mad max in a week.
You accuse others of your own hypocrisy. You fear jury nullification because the last thing you want is a nation where everyone is equal under the law. The last thing you want, your pretentious posturing notwithstanding, is freedom. You want to escalate the prison nation we all ready live in.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Exuberant1
So it's ok if I go to a courthouse, hold up a sign saying Jury Info and hand out pamphlets to people saying all people arrested are guilty?
I don't think anyone will believe you.
And you wouldn't do that anyways.
Originally posted by OhZone
Reply to whatukno.
Really? Have you read the FIJA info?
Informing potential jurists of their rights and duties is tampering/influencing?
Would you like to tell us How exactly?
Have you ever listened to the judge's instructions to the jury?
They are Never told that they have the duty to judge the Law as well as the accused.
In some cases he outright Tells them how to vote.
Originally posted by silo13
He's holding up a sign that says JURY INFO. He's standing amidst a cluster of courthouses. He's been arrested 11 times for the SAME offense.
He's grandstanding and a suck up for attention and more You Tube time.
Me? If I walked by someone and they were holding up a sign that said 'JURY INFO' and I wasn't on a jury, I wouldn't waste my time with reading the material.
As for Jury tampering? Well one thing can be said, without the 'JURY INFO' sign this would all be a non-incident.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by PsykoOps
Actually if even one juror took that pamphlet and based their decision on it it is in fact Jury Tampering. Impossible to prove, but it's the exact same as if that juror took a bribe.
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
The gold fringed flag conspiracy has already been widely debunked Dale Gribble.
Before the jury renders their verdict, a judge gives them a set of instructions on how they are to render the verdict. If this set of instructions changes the verdict of one of the jurists, is that judge then guilty of jury tampering? FIJA is doing the exact same thing as the courthouse, but only better.
Also, I am under the distinct impression that all speech except for libel and slander are protected under the constitution. But apparently any speech that does not suit your personal preferences can now be rendered illegal. How do you explain how making suggestions to a jurist about a specific case can possibly be illegal when it is our right as human beings to offer our opinions on any and all issues?
libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).