| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted For Legal Act |
| 2011-02-25 |
| Mr. Julian Heicklen, a retired Pennsylvania State University chemistry professor, has been indicted by federal prosecutors on a charge that his distributing of pamphlets advocating the right of jury nullification and that jurors should vote their conscience violates the law against jury tampering. He was arraigned on Friday in a hearing before federal magistrate Judge Kimba M. Wood, who entered a not guilty plea on his behalf when he refused to say how he would plead. Mr. Heicklen insists that he never tries to influence specific jurors or cases, and instead gives his brochures to passers-by, hoping that jurors are among them. Prosecutors declined to comment on his case, as did Sabrina Shroff, a lawyer who was assigned to assist Mr. Heicklen. (He is acting as his own lawyer.) Mr. Heicklen also distributes information from the Fully Informed Jury Association, which urges jurors to nullify laws with which they disagree. “I don’t want them to nullify the murder laws,” he said. “I’m a big law-and-order guy when it comes to real crime.” “This is classic political advocacy,” Christopher T. Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said referring to Mr. Heicklen’s pamphleteering. “Unless the government can show that he’s singling out jurors to influence a specific verdict, it’s squarely protected by the First Amendment, and they should dismiss the case.” Court records show that before Mr. Heicklen’s indictment last fall, Mr. Heicklen has been cited at least six times since October 2009 for distributing fliers without a permit at the entrance of the Manhattan federal courthouse. But the violations, which carry fines, do not depend on the content of his message. If convicted of the jury tampering charge, he could face a six-month sentence. In court Friday, Judge Wood noted that because he was charged with a misdemeanor, she said, he was not entitled to a jury trial. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #8 The fact that the New York Times -- and other such biased sources -- reports something is also a useful datum, gromky. And they do have a few seriously good reporters in among the creative writers, whose work comes through relatively untouched. That gentleman who tracked down Mr. Assange in England, f'r instance, did crackerjack work in Iraq, as I recall. Also, you can take the key facts as the start of a google search that will lead you to more balanced sources, where otherwise you mightn't know about the story at all. I know that's a bit harder in your part of the world, what with all those firewalls, but recent research has shown that doing web searches is as good for forestalling senility as crosswords or sudoku -- and much more rewarding, in my opinion. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-25 23:26 |
| #7 yes and yes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-02-25 21:49 |
| #6 Honest question: is gromky just being an ankle-biting smartass, or is that an honest question? |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2011-02-25 21:37 |
| #5 Well, I'm just confused if the NYT is trustworthy or not. Because if they aren't, then they can't be trusted to say the sky is blue. But if they are, then that's problematic as well. How do you tell if the NYT is pushing a viewpoint or not? Typically they weave it into the story seamlessly. |
| Posted by: gromky 2011-02-25 16:57 |
| #4 If you don't like it, start your own blog. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-02-25 16:22 |
| #3 We also harvest info from the AyPee, Iran's PressTV, and DEBKA among others. Not alway unimpeachable sources, but sometimes the value is not the information content, but what story they are pushing. Think of it as a form of traffic analysis. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2011-02-25 15:59 |
| #2 ..a retired Pennsylvania State University chemistry professor.. Can you say karma - In the 1670 "Hay-market case", William Penn was accused of the crime of 'preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly' and while he freely admitted his guilt, he challenged the righteousness of such a law. The jury, recognizing that William Penn clearly had been preaching in public, but refusing to find him guilty of speaking to an unlawful assembly, attempted to find Penn guilty of "speaking in Gracechurch-street". The judge, unsatisfied with this decision, withheld food, water, and toilet facilities from the jurors for three days. The jurors finally decided to return a not guilty verdict overall, and while the decision was accepted, the jurors were fined. One of the jurors appealed this fine, and Chief Justice Sir John Vaughn issued an historically important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. This case is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification. Abramson, Jeffrey (1994). We, The Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 68–72. ISBN 0-674-00430-2. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-02-25 15:56 |
| #1 Huh. I thought the NYT was a fount of lies, and anything they say can't be trusted? Yet here they are on Rantburg. |
| Posted by: gromky 2011-02-25 15:26 |