U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted
Source:
NYTIMES
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?_r=1
Published: Feb 25, 2011
Author: BENJAMIN WEISER
Post Date: 2011-02-25 14:54:56 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 6487
Comments: 10
Julian P. Heicklen sat silent and unresponsive as his bail hearing began one day recently in federal court in Manhattan; his eyes were closed, his head slumped forward. “Mr. Heicklen?” the magistrate judge, Ronald L. Ellis, asked. “Mr. Heicklen? Is Mr. Heicklen awake?” “I believe he is, your honor,” a prosecutor, Rebecca Mermelstein, said. “I think he’s choosing not to respond but is certainly capable of doing so.” There was, in fact, nothing wrong with Mr. Heicklen, 78, who eventually opened his eyes and told the judge, “I’m exercising my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.” Indeed, it was not his silence that landed Mr. Heicklen, a retired Pennsylvania State University chemistry professor, in court; it was what he had been doing outside the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood there and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience. That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates the law against jury tampering. He was arraigned on Friday in a somewhat contentious hearing before Judge Kimba M. Wood, who entered a not guilty plea on his behalf when he refused to say how he would plead. During the proceeding, he railed at the judge and the government, and called the indictment “a tissue of lies.” 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. But he feels his message must be getting out, or the government would not have brought charges against him. “If I weren’t having any effect, would they do this?” said Mr. Heicklen, whose former colleagues recall him as a talented and unconventional educator. “You don’t have to be a genius to figure this thing out.” 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.) He said his activism on nullification dated back to just after he retired in the early 1990s, when he openly smoked marijuana in State College, Pa., to get arrested as a protest against marijuana laws. For this, he was arrested about five times. Mr. Heicklen has said that he otherwise does not smoke marijuana. Around the same time, he learned about a group called the Fully Informed Jury Association, which urges jurors to nullify laws with which they disagree. Mr. Heicklen, of Teaneck, N.J., said he distributed the group’s materials as well as his own. “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.” But, he said, there were other laws he wanted to nullify, like drug and gambling laws. “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.” But Daniel C. Richman, a former prosecutor who teaches criminal law at Columbia, said there was an interest in ensuring the integrity of the jury process. “The government has to walk a fine First Amendment line bringing these charges,” he said, “but lawless jury behavior is certainly of concern to it, too.” Mr. Heicklen says that when he stands outside the court, he holds a sign that reads “Jury Info” to draw people to him. “Sometimes they think I’m official,” he said. He answers questions and advises that jurors have the right to nullify. Jessica A. Roth, a Cardozo law professor, said such activities could confuse and mislead jurors, since “the information he’s giving these people is likely to be in direct conflict with the instructions they will receive from a judge if they are jurors in a case.” Mr. Heicklen, a Cornell graduate, taught for more than 20 years at Penn State, where he was a faculty member known for his innovative methods, former colleagues said. He would bring Penn State dancers, actors and cheerleaders into one course to illustrate molecular vibration and to celebrate scientific discovery. “People talked about this course for years,” Robert Bernheim, a retired professor, recalled. Barbara J. Garrison, who heads the Penn State chemistry department, called Mr. Heicklen “an enormously creative scientist” who “really liked to think outside the box and sometimes that meant that he ran counter to the establishment.” About his earlier marijuana arrests, Ms. Garrison said, “He had his own way of doing it, but he was really fighting for people who were in jail that he didn’t think belonged in jail.” 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. When issued a citation, Mr. Heicklen acknowledged, he sometimes intentionally dropped to the sidewalk, and had even been taken to local hospitals, where he was examined and released. In court Friday, Judge Wood noted a request by Mr. Heicklen that Muslims be “excluded from the jury" because he was Jewish and “Islam preaches death to Jews.” Because he was charged with a misdemeanor, she said, he was not entitled to a jury trial; and in any case, she said, jurors may not be excluded because of religion. Mr. Heicklen has extended his protest to suing the government and various hospitals to which he was taken after being issued citations and falling to the ground. “Plaintiff Heicklen,” he said in one suit, “has become an angry man.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
I hope the left and right can come and join up and support this person's cause.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Not guilty.
I recall a re-run of MASH I saw where this uber right winger named Colonel Flagg... Passing out pamphlets on the street that expresses a political view is not jury tampering. It's exercising one's 1st amendment rights. Local governments have been violating people's 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure for years with so-called civil forfeiture laws. It was only a matter of time before they violated someone's 1st amendment rights in an attempt to silence someone they disagreed with.
Of course. If the state was so silly, for example, as to make the eating of a banana a felony crime, would that really make it a crime, or would it make it tyranny? In such a case- were I to be force to sit on a jury, to judge whether a man committed the "crime" of eating a banana, I would NEVER vote "guilty." Through tyrannical government, anything could be called a "crime." If it is truly criminal in nature- theft, murder, rape- then I have no problem with the criminal code. But if something obviously ridiculous is labled as criminal behavior, I will judge the nature of the law itself. From wikipedia: First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794),[27]... Jury nullification is the last peaceful means of protection for the people against an unjust government. When jury nullification is outlawed, the last remaining solution to remove tyrannical government will be through force of arms. The man is a HERO.
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Algren, "The Last Samurai" It's almost over for them, isn't it?
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Algren, "The Last Samurai" From Wikipedia: In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[22] possibly as often as 60% of the time. This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition... I can tell with 100% certainty, if I was on a jury that was hearing a case which I deemed to be unconstitutional, I would certainly vote to nullify regardless of what the evidence of the case was. To me, this would apply to any case involving A.) prosecution under the Patriot Act, B.) federal or state gun laws, and C.) anything to do with a "victimless crime", including drug possession or distribution.
I certainly hope so. Tyrants around the world are on the run. But the forces of reaction are fighting back in Greece, France, the U.K. and now in America. The prosecutor who is persecuting this poor man is part of the reaction. So are the union protesters in Wisconsin. The more I look at this, the more I am convinced that what we witnessing the final death of the 20th century and the concept of the all powerful State that it spawned. People from Tea Party members to lowly peasants in Libya are standing up and saying: we've had enough, NO MORE. It's a great time to be alive and witness this. The sad part is that America is going to lag in this revolution because our vested interests are the most powerful on earth. They will not simply go gently into that good night.
I sat on a jury in a rape trial, years ago. Most of the other jurors were absolutely ready to convict the man of rape, even before the evidence had been presented and still, even though the story told by the evidence in the case proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the two involved parties had been having a clandestine affair and both parties had lied repeatedly about it during testimony. The other jurors just wanted to go home and were ready to do anything just to end the trial after about a week. I refused to convict the man because it was obvious that they were both lying and we ended up with a hung jury and mistrial. It turned out that they were caught by the females boyfriend, and she claimed rape. It was a very eye opening experience for me.
I agree with you on that one. I have thought about doing this myself. I feel a cold chill.
It's too bad that this country is already so divided that each side needs a personal invitation.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Godwinson posted on 2011-02-23 11:47:32 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18011&Disp=46#C46
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood there and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience. That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it.
In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[22] possibly as often as 60% of the time.[23] This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty- first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition....
#5. To: jwpegler (#3)
It was only a matter of time before they violated someone's 1st amendment rights in an attempt to silence someone they disagreed with.
#6. To: Brian S (#0)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#7. To: Capitalist Eric (#5)
(Edited)
It's almost over for them, isn't it?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
If it is truly criminal in nature- theft, murder, rape- then I have no problem with the criminal code.
#9. To: Godwinson (#1)
#10. To: Godwinson (#1)
I hope the left and right can come and join up and support this person's cause.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]