[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Man Arrested, Charged with Multiple Felonies for Telling Jurors About Their Rights
Source: Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08 ... ted-charged-with-multiple.html
Published: Aug 3, 2015
Author: Carey Wedler
Post Date: 2015-08-04 10:58:09 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23150
Comments: 92

By Carey Wedler

Last week, a Denver man was arrested and charged with multiple felonies, but not for stealing, committing fraud, or engaging in violent crime. He was targeted for attempting to educate jurors about their rights in the courtroom.

Mark Ianicelli, 56, set up a table outside of Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver in order to educate jurors about jury nullification. Jury nullification is the process by which members of juries can nullify unjust laws by finding defendants charged with them not guilty.

Ianicelli is charged with tampering with a jury, a felony in Colorado that carries a minimum bond of $5,000. He was charged by the Denver District Attorney for seven counts of tampering, and has since bailed out of jail. Ianicelli was in the second day of a planned three-day outreach to educate jurors entering the courtroom about the power of jury nullification. He was handing out fliers when he was arrested. His goal was to inform potential jurors about a vital, centuries-old function of juries.

The practice was first used in America in 1735 to exonerate a man of libel charges after he printed unflattering statements about the Governor of New York (a British colony at the time). Though he had undoubtedly printed them, the jury found him not guilty and set the precedent that members of juries could judge the morality and legitimacy of laws.

The United States’ first Chief Justice, John Jay, once told jurors, “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law].” Jurors would seize this right to nullify anti-sedition laws in the early 1800s that attempted to stifle free speech criticizing the newly formed United States government.

Judges first began cracking down on the right to nullify in the late 1800s. By that time, jurors had already used nullification to challenge the Fugitive Slave Act, which imposed heavy punishment on Northerners who aided escaped slaves from the South. Though judges came to discourage nullification, the practice went on to be useful in nullifying Prohibition-era laws.

Jury nullification still affects prohibition against outlawed drugs. In 2012, a New Hampshire jury acquitted a Rastafarian man, Doug Darrell, of growing marijuana—though he was technically guilty of the violation. The jurors had been informed of their right to nullify and found the law and charges against Darrell to be unjust. They found him not guilty.

However, this power of the people has not gone unchecked. Though some states allow for the practice, judges often fail to notify jurors of their ability to nullify. Activists have been harassed and jailed for attempting to inform jurors of their right to judge the morality of laws.

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), a non-profit organization that educates jurors on their rights (and whose pamphlets Ianicelli was handing out when he was arrested), is one group that attempts to counter these suppressions by the justice system.

Kirsten Tynan of FIJA reported on Ianicelli’s case, stating that officials in Denver claimed a juror had complained about Ianicelli’s presence near the courthouse, prompting his arrest. Tynan was told Ianicelli was arrested on charges of jury tampering, which according to Colorado law, consists of:

(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.
Though Tynan acknowledged that under some circumstances nullification activism is not legally permissible, it appears Ianicelli was within his rights. He is due back in court on August 11 to face his victimless felony charges.

It is more than alarming that a man attempting to facilitate and strengthen the judicial process is punished with the full force of the law—the very thing Ianicelli sought to educate jurors about. As Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1941, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” When the justice system refuses to allow jurors to be aware of their rights, let alone exercise them, the country’s entire system of “law and order” is called into question.

Carey Wedler writes for theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Carey Wedler joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in September of 2014. As a writer and senior editor, her topics of interest include the police and warfare states, the Drug War, the relevance of history to current problems and solutions, and positive developments that drive humanity forward. She currently resides in Los Angeles, California, where she was born and raised. Learn more about Wedler here!
(2 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Though Tynan acknowledged that under some circumstances nullification activism is not legally permissible, it appears Ianicelli was within his rights. He is due back in court on August 11 to face his victimless felony charges.

Setting up outside a courthouse is a bad choice for FIJA activism. The courts, who hate fully-informed jurors, will always conclude that the intent is to influence a juror's vote.

You need to reach out to people and make your case before they become jurors, not after.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-04   11:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

Mark Ianicelli, 56, set up a table outside of Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver in order to educate jurors about jury nullification.

The man is a national hero.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-04   18:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Though Tynan acknowledged that under some circumstances nullification activism is not legally permissible, it appears Ianicelli was within his rights.

Sure he was. He set up outside the entrance of the courthouse and provided his information to jurors or potential jurors.

The defendant, Mark Iannicelli... was identified by the Denver District Attorney Lamar Simms, as handing out literature in front of 520 W Colfax Ave, the Lindsey Flanigan Court House, to actual and potential state and city jury members. A cardboard sign with "Juror Info" was positioned at the entrance to the court houses. Several jurors were contacted by Denver Police Intelligence Unit and were found to be in possession of fliers handed out by the defendant. The defendant was identified to reporting officers by members of the Intelligence unit. Upon contact, officers explained the reason for the contact, including that the police had been informed of the defendant handing out information to potential jurors. When asked for his name and date of birth, the defendant refused to provide any information. The defendant was taken into custody for investigation of Jury Tampering, and a Colorado Driver's License was located in his wallet. The fliers were recovered as evidence and were titled, "All You Need To Know About Jury Nullification".

At the time of the offense, a death penalty case was underway at the same location, 520 W Colfax Ave.

- - - - -

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/18-8-609.html

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-04   19:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: TooConservative (#1)

It is a GREAT way to educate people. People need to overwhelm courthouses with as many bodies as can be raised. If a free people won't even risk jail time for Liberty, how can we ever expect them to make the changes necessary to our country?

jeremiad  posted on  2015-08-04   22:36:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: All (#4)

A judge can decide if evidence can be heard, because he is superior to jurors. That is totally against all our Justice system was set up to be.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-08-04   22:38:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: jeremiad, TooConservative (#4)

It is a GREAT way to educate people. People need to overwhelm courthouses with as many bodies as can be raised.

If one does not want to go to prison, a better idea is not to do it at the entrance to the courthouse to actual jurors.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   0:01:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: nolu chan (#3)

(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.

A slam-dunk for the D.A. in most any jurisdiction.

The fliers were recovered as evidence and were titled, "All You Need To Know About Jury Nullification".

Hopefully, he had also read a pamphlet entitled "All You Need To Know About Being Prosecuted For Jury-Tampering On The Courthouse Steps".

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   2:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#7)

(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.

A slam-dunk for the D.A. in most any jurisdiction.

I do not agree.

Jury tampering must mean a targeting a juror or jury in a specific case. One cannot treat as a tampering, a public speech on jury rights or nullification directed at random audience, whether one mile from a courthouse or 30 feet.

Otherwise anyone on this forum could be prosecuted for jury tampering and it would be a bloody nonsense.

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   5:02:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A Pole (#8) (Edited)

There is a difference between advocating for FIJA at a courthouse with jurors coming and going and between doing the same at a free speech venue like a political gathering or an online forum or a public park or a local fair or other venue.

The proximity to the courthouse and to the jury pool will assure a quick conviction. You can bet that that jury will heavily screened by the judge and D.A. and I expect they will make arguments about how a lone juror with a nullification agenda can thwart a jury who has spent months hearing a case.

I would guess the D.A. and judge will be quite prepared to silence any FIJA argument this defendant tries to make to his own jury.

The D.A. will score points with a jury by asking just who the man was trying to influence (the jurors) and what his objective was (to encourage jurors to nullify laws).

We'll have to wait to hear the outcome of this case which we should expect to go to a jury. Even if it is resolved in the next month or so, will the trial result get any publicity or get posted here at LF? I doubt it.

Otherwise anyone on this forum could be prosecuted for jury tampering and it would be a bloody nonsense.

A straw man. We're not jurors or reporting to a courthouse for a jury pool. FIJA has had its website and outreach for many years now and no one harasses their free speech or advocacy.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   5:17:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TooConservative (#9)

The proximity to the courthouse and to the jury pool will assure a quick conviction. You can bet that that jury will heavily screened by the judge and D.A. and I expect they will make arguments about how a lone juror with a nullification agenda can thwart a jury who has spent months hearing a case.

Ha, ha. There is a deep trap waiting for the prosecution.

How will they argue against the defendant for his promotion of jury nullification WITHOUT mentioning jury nullification to the jury?!

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   5:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A Pole, nolu chan (#10)

Ha, ha. There is a deep trap waiting for the prosecution. How will they argue against the defendant for his promotion of jury nullification WITHOUT mentioning jury nullification to the jury?!

Hopefully, this guy will get better advice from his attorney.

Judges and D.A.'s have quite often encountered FIJA activists and nullification arguments. They are prepared to make their own arguments against nullification, present cases that cast jury nullification in a bad light, and will issue jury instructions that are quite strict. In all likelihood, I expect the judge will instruct the jurors to report any juror making a nullification argument and the D.A. will threaten them with prosecution if any juror advocates nullification in deliberations.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   5:34:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#11) (Edited)

I expect the judge will instruct the jurors to report any juror making a nullification argument and the D.A. will threaten them with prosecution if any juror advocates nullification in deliberations.

Can DA prosecute jurors for deliberation arguments? Wow!

I did not know that. It puts the institution of jury in a different light. When in jury you need to be very cautious not to end up in prison for offending judge or a prosecutor. The safest course is just do what judge and prosecution wants. Not everyone is a hero.

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   5:56:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A Pole (#12) (Edited)

I did not know that. It puts the institution of jury in a different light. When in jury you need to be very cautious not to end up in prison for offending judge or a prosecutor. The safest course is just do what judge and prosecution wants. Not everyone is a hero.

If you tried to hand out FIJA literature in a jury room, you'd likely be prosecuted.

If you make nullification arguments and the other jurors complain, you might be summarily dismissed from the jury. Naturally, these matters can vary by state.

And federal prosecutors and judges would be harsher on nullifiers than state or local courts. This guy is lucky he didn't try this at a federal courthouse where a jury was being assembled in a high-profile case, like the James Holmes case being heard in Denver now in the Arapahoe County courthouse.

How would you feel about some Muslim handing out FIJA literature to potential jurors in the Tsaraev case? What if the Muslim FIJA advocate was handing the literature to other Muslims, one or more of whom was in the jury pool to hear the Tsarnaev case? Would that be okay with you?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   6:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative (#1)

You need to reach out to people and make your case before they become jurors, not after.

Spot on.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-08-05   6:49:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: TooConservative (#13)

How would you feel about some Muslim handing out FIJA literature to potential jurors in the Tsaraev case?

Why would any jury would use nullification in that case?

The right of jury to be sovereign in its decisions does not mean that jury will let bad criminals go free. If a jury is not independent but is a puppet of the judge and prosecution (defense seemingly is not equal to the last) what is the purpose of jury? Just that average citizen has better judgment of the facts?

But you seem to miss my main point. How the judge and prosecutor will manage to pursue a guy who told potential jurors about nullification, WITHOUT MENTIONING his offense? This is catch 22 situation.

If they mention his offense they will have to inform jury about nullification. Then the prosecution and judge will be guilty of tampering with the jury more than the defendant because they will do it inside the court straight to the jury.

This is an example how basing legal proceedings on required ignorance of general ideas and of historical facts, that were real and known to more informed and intelligent people before a specific case, leads to logical absurdities.

You yourself should be banned from serving on a jury because you read related articles on this forum and your mind got irreparably corrupted by the forbidden knowledge. You ate the forbidden fruit so you must be expelled too.

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   8:17:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: nolu chan (#6)

If one does not want to go to prison, a better idea is not to do it at the entrance to the courthouse to actual jurors.

A few years ago I seriously considered doing the same thing.

I think it is free speech myself.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-05   8:19:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A Pole (#15)

I think your reasoning in your comment is reasonalbe and I agree with you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-05   8:20:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: GrandIsland (#14)

You need to reach out to people and make your case before they become jurors, not after.

Spot on.

How can you know if a man on a street is not a juror? Or should there be a zone 300 yards from the court that you cannot distribute materials on nullification?

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   8:21:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: TooConservative (#13)

How would you feel about some Muslim handing out FIJA literature to potential jurors in the Tsaraev case? What if the Muslim FIJA advocate was handing the literature to other Muslims, one or more of whom was in the jury pool to hear the Tsarnaev case? Would that be okay with you?

Since the constitution clearly says the goverment can make no law (no law no law no law no law no law, let that sink in) in respect to freedom of speech. It can't be illegal to hand out pure speech anywhere. Making it illegal would require a law, which is forbidden.

You don't really support the first amendment, it is obvious by your statements.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-05   8:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A Pole (#15)

If they mention his offense they will have to inform jury about nullification. Then the prosecution and judge will be guilty of tampering with the jury more than the defendant because they will do it inside the court straight to the jury.

Any judge or prosecutor can give some background info on jury nullification under the British common law and the extent to which it might be reasonably applied in modern trials (to them, pretty much never).

I think they will find it easy to convict on the attempt to poison a jury pool immediately prior to jury service.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   8:31:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#19)

Since the constitution clearly says the goverment can make no law (no law no law no law no law no law, let that sink in) in respect to freedom of speech. It can't be illegal to hand out pure speech anywhere. Making it illegal would require a law, which is forbidden.

But we don't have absolute freedom of speech in America and never have. It's been a long time since anyone could get away with shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, the classic example. (Shiloh Baptist Church disaster, Italian Hall disaster). These notorious tragedies were followed some years later by Justice Holmes, ruling on a WW I draft resistance advocate being prosecuted.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   8:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: TooConservative (#21)

This isn't shouting fire in a theatre.

This is pure political speech which the constitution protects.

You have to pretend the constitution doesn't say what it says to probibit passing out of literature of any kind anywhere.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-05   8:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A Pole (#18)

How can you know if a man on a street is not a juror? Or should there be a zone 300 yards from the court that you cannot distribute materials on nullification?

If you have a good product, you don't have to act like a snake oil salesman to sell it. Iow's, you don't have to sell hotdogs, on a cart, on the front sidewalk of a restaurant.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-08-05   9:04:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#6)

Maybe set up a booth at the local county fair, where 4 people will stop in, see and remember. Yeah, that's the ticket.

There is no better publicity or example of illegitimacy of a law than when people are arrested merely for exercising their right to speak freely in the public square.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-08-05   9:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A Pole (#15)

You yourself should be banned from serving on a jury because you read related articles on this forum and your mind got irreparably corrupted by the forbidden knowledge.

I mostly draw on Fully-Informed Jury Association for info on the topic.

Look in particular at the origins of jury nullification centuries back.

Current FIJA page on this case:

photo credit: Janet Matzen

photo credit: Janet Matzen

Since the Denver DA issued a press release on the arrest last week of Mark Ianicelli for handing out jury nullification flyers, I gave the contact person listed therein a call this morning to see about getting more information on the case. She forwarded me the Complaint and Information as well as the Probably Cause Statement, which we now have available for anyone to look at on a special page we’ve set up for this case.

The seven charges listed in the Complaint and Information provide very little information. Seven separate charges are listed because, according to my telephone conversation with Lynn Kimbrough from the Denver DA’s office, jury nullification materials were found in the possession of seven different jurors (or possibly potential jurors- now that I’m writing this up I don’t think I asked that). I did ask if the seven individuals were all sitting on the same case. Ms. Kimbrough did not know the answer to that. The charges don’t discuss specifically what Mr. Iannicelli is accused of doing, but rather seem to regurgitate the language of the statute which he is accused of violating (C.R.S. 18-8-609 for all counts) and then claim that he violated it. Even the names of the people who had the jury nullification information in their possession are redacted.

The Statement of Probable Cause, however, sheds a little more light on things. It reads as follows:
The probable cause of the arrest of the above-named individual is as follows:

[The defendant, Mark Iannicelli... was identified by the Denver District Attorney Lamar Simms, as handing out literature in front of 520 W Colfax Ave, the Lindsey Flanigan Court House, to actual and potential state and city jury members. A cardboard sign with "Juror Info" was positioned at the entrance to the court housees. Several jurors were contacted by Denver Police Intelligence Unit and were found to be in possession of fliers handed out by the defendant. The defendant was identified to reporting officers by members of the Intelligence unit. Upon contact, officers explained the reason for the contact, including that the police had been informed of the defendant handing out information to potential jurors. When asked for his name and date of birth, the defendant refused to provide any information. The defendant was taken into custody for investigation of Jury Tampering, and a Colorado Driver's License was located in his wallet. The fliers were recovered as evidence and were titled, "All You Need To Know About Jury Nullification".
At the time of the offense, a death penalty case was underway at the same location, 520 W Colfax Ave.]

What is interesting about this description is that:
1. it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli of advocating for or against any case in progress,
2. it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli even of targeting individuals for sharing information with them based on whether or not they were a juror or were there for jury duty, and
3. a death penalty case happened to be going on in the courthouse at the time of the jury rights educational outreach.

That death penalty case, by the way, does not appear to be the Aurora theater shooting trial that is currently in the national spotlight. I looked that up and it seems to be taking place at the Arapahoe County Courthouse, also in Denver.

From my reading of C.R.S. 18-8-609, which says:

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.

I see nothing in the Statement of Probable Cause substantiating these accusations. The charges allege that Mr. Iannicelli acted “with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, and action in a case”, but nowhere in the Statement of Probable Cause do I see anything that indicates such.

When I give someone information on their full, legal authority as a juror, I’m not telling them to vote one way or another. I’m merely presenting them with the complete picture of all of their options, including the right of jury nullification that they will typically either not be informed about or will be explicitly misinformed about once they get into a courtroom. What they do with that information is up to them. They may choose to exercise that right in a case before them, or they may choose not to exercise it. That is up to them.

Nothing I have heard from any of the local people who saw the arrest and/or know Mr. Iannicelli indicates that he was doing anything other than fully informing people about all the options jurors have. The Statement of Probable Cause, which also does not indicate anything beyond presenting people with all of the options that jurors can exercise, is consistent with that.

This distinction in a similar case years ago with regard to a similar federal jury tampering statute was recognized by the judge in that case, and she correctly dismissed the indictment.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   9:29:25 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: jeremiad (#24)

There is no better publicity or example of illegitimacy of a law than when people are arrested merely for exercising their right to speak freely in the public square.

This is no more repressive than forbidding candidates/campaigns from campaigning near polling places on election day.

I know of no cases of FIJA activists ever being harassed or arrested unless they are quite near a courthouse. Just as abortion clinics are what draws pro-life protesters, a courthouse attracts FIJA activists.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   9:32:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A Pole (#15)

But you seem to miss my main point. How the judge and prosecutor will manage to pursue a guy who told potential jurors about nullification, WITHOUT MENTIONING his offense? This is catch 22 situation.

That is a piece of cake for the Justice system. The Judge would not allow the pamphlets into evidence, the word "nullification" and the charge, if it is not plead out will be jury tampering. ON THE DATE OF _____ DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT A JURY? OBJECTION, STRIKE THAT COMMENT. WITNESS WILL RESTRICT HIMSELF TO YES OR NO ANSWERS OR BE LITERALLY GAGGED IN COURT.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-08-05   9:41:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#26)

This is no more repressive than forbidding candidates/campaigns from campaigning near polling places on election day.

Wrong analogy. This activist did not try to influence choice or decision of the jurors. He was informing non-jurors and jurors (without knowing their status) about the jurors rights.

The proper analogy would be comparing it with an activist who advises voters (or passerby's) of their rights, for example that they can write other candidate in or that they are free not to vote. This would not be campaigning, sir.

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   9:54:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A Pole (#28) (Edited)

This would not be campaigning, sir.

Damn, what are you going to do, slap me with a glove and challenge me to a duel?     : )

Your analogy is ridiculous.

You can demonstrate or hold vigils outside a courthouse. But you aren't allowed to try to influence jurors. Our system allows for the sequester of jurors to try to isolate them from attempts to influence their opinion outside the facts of the case as presented in the courtroom.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   10:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: jeremiad (#27)

That is a piece of cake for the Justice system. The Judge would not allow the pamphlets into evidence, the word "nullification" and the charge, if it is not plead out will be jury tampering. ON THE DATE OF _____ DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT A JURY? OBJECTION, STRIKE THAT COMMENT. WITNESS WILL RESTRICT HIMSELF TO YES OR NO ANSWERS OR BE LITERALLY GAGGED IN COURT.

Well, he did not try to obstruct jury. He wanted to help it! So the answer will be no.

But what about charges? Can judge disallow the substance of the supposed obstruction? How jury can form an opinion without knowing what was the actual offense?

Even if jury is allowed to know only that he was giving leaflets that contained something about the juries, how jurors can know that the leaflets were offensive in any way? There is no law that any words about laws related to jury are taboo.

If jury has ascertain whether law against tampering with juries was violated it needs to know what supposed violating act looked like. If you are accused of battery, can the information whether you hit someone or did anything that is considered a battery be withheld from the jury?

"Jurors - believe us that he battered his wife. But you may not be informed whether he hit her, kicked her, bit her or else, or if there were any bruises. You can examine witnesses but they cannot tell what they saw or heard"

[...]

The twelve jurors were all writing very busily on slates. `What are they doing?' Alice whispered to the Gryphon. `They can't have anything to put down yet, before the trial's begun.'

`They're putting down their names,' the Gryphon whispered in reply, `for fear they should forget them before the end of the trial.'

[...]

One of the jurors had a pencil that squeaked. This of course, Alice could not stand, and she went round the court and got behind him, and very soon found an opportunity of taking it away. She did it so quickly that the poor little juror (it was Bill, the Lizard) could not make out at all what had become of it; so, after hunting all about for it, he was obliged to write with one finger for the rest of the day; and this was of very little use, as it left no mark on the slate.

[...]

On this the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and then unrolled the parchment scroll, and read as follows:--

`The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, All on a summer day: The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts, And took them quite away!'

`Consider your verdict,' the King said to the jury.

`Not yet, not yet!' the Rabbit hastily interrupted. `There's a great deal to come before that!'

`Call the first witness,' said the King; and the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out, `First witness!'

The first witness was the Hatter. He came in with a teacup in one hand and a piece of bread-and-butter in the other. `I beg pardon, your Majesty,' he began, `for bringing these in: but I hadn't quite finished my tea when I was sent for.'

[...]

`Take off your hat,' the King said to the Hatter.

`It isn't mine,' said the Hatter.

`Stolen!' the King exclaimed, turning to the jury, who instantly made a memorandum of the fact.

`I keep them to sell,' the Hatter added as an explanation; `I've none of my own. I'm a hatter.'

Here the Queen put on her spectacles, and began staring at the Hatter, who turned pale and fidgeted.

`Give your evidence,' said the King; `and don't be nervous, or I'll have you executed on the spot.'

[...]

`I'm a poor man,' the Hatter went on, `and most things twinkled after that--only the March Hare said--'

`I didn't!' the March Hare interrupted in a great hurry.

`You did!' said the Hatter.

`I deny it!' said the March Hare.

`He denies it,' said the King: `leave out that part.'

`Well, at any rate, the Dormouse said--' the Hatter went on, looking anxiously round to see if he would deny it too: but the Dormouse denied nothing, being fast asleep.

`After that,' continued the Hatter, `I cut some more bread- and-butter--'

`But what did the Dormouse say?' one of the jury asked.

`That I can't remember,' said the Hatter.

`You MUST remember,' remarked the King, `or I'll have you executed.'

The miserable Hatter dropped his teacup and bread-and-butter, and went down on one knee. `I'm a poor man, your Majesty,' he began.

`You're a very poor speaker,' said the King.

Here one of the guinea-pigs cheered, and was immediately suppressed by the officers of the court. (As that is rather a hard word, I will just explain to you how it was done. They had a large canvas bag, which tied up at the mouth with strings: into this they slipped the guinea-pig, head first, and then sat upon it.)

`I'm glad I've seen that done,' thought Alice. `I've so often read in the newspapers, at the end of trials, "There was some attempts at applause, which was immediately suppressed by the officers of the court," and I never understood what it meant till now.'

[...]

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   10:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: TooConservative (#29)

But you aren't allowed to try to influence jurors.

What do you mean by "influencing" them. It cannot be too broad. Is a judge "influencing" them by informing jury about the law?

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   10:29:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: TooConservative (#29)

Our system allows for the sequester of jurors to try to isolate them from attempts to influence their opinion outside the facts of the case as presented in the courtroom.

Well, nullification is not about opinion in particular case. It is about rights of the jury in general. Don't you see a difference?

A Pole  posted on  2015-08-05   10:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A Pole (#32)

Well, nullification is not about opinion in particular case. It is about rights of the jury in general. Don't you see a difference?

I favor FIJA but I don't like trolling outside courthouses or voting places.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-05   10:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A Pole, TooConservative (#8)

Jury tampering must mean a targeting a juror or jury in a specific case.

Don’t try that defense in court. Targeting jurors in general will work just fine.

Otherwise anyone on this forum could be prosecuted for jury tampering and it would be a bloody nonsense.

The people on this forum are not attempting to influcence sitting jurors, unlike the dude at the entrance of the courthouse with his juror information brochures.

The crime was complete when he attempted to communicate with a juror to influence that juror’s actions, even had they turned him down and refused to look at his brochure.

http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/offenses/6.13.html

Jury tampering, C.R.S. § 18-8-609, occurs when a person attempts to communicate with a juror in an attempt to influence that juror's actions as a juror. This is a class 5 felony, except that jury tampering in the trial of a class 1 felony offense is a class 4 felony.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorado.com/colorado-criminal-law-code-of-offenses-by-topical-listing-of-the-categories-of-crimes/023-a-colorado-criminal-code-governmental-operations-public-corruption-and-bribery-ii.html

The Colorado Crime of Jury tampering 18-8-609 (2)

Knowing participation in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors or attempting to communicate with or influence jurors other than as a part of the official trial proceedings is a class 5 felony. 18-8-609 (2)

Jury tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony. 18-8-609 (2)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   19:22:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: jeremiad, A Pole, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#24)

[A Pole #10] Ha, ha. There is a deep trap waiting for the prosecution.

How will they argue against the defendant for his promotion of jury nullification WITHOUT mentioning jury nullification to the jury?!

“attempting to communicate with or influence jurors other than as a part of the official trial proceedings is a class 5 felony. 18-8-609 (2)”

They can show he attempted (perhaps succeeded) in handing out his juror information brochure to a juror. The complaint came from a juror. He needed only to attempt to communicate with a juror other than as part of the official trial proceedings.

[TooConservative #11] Judges and D.A.'s have quite often encountered FIJA activists and nullification arguments. They are prepared to make their own arguments against nullification, present cases that cast jury nullification in a bad light, and will issue jury instructions that are quite strict. In all likelihood, I expect the judge will instruct the jurors to report any juror making a nullification argument and the D.A. will threaten them with prosecution if any juror advocates nullification in deliberations.

They cannot so threaten the jury. It is not that the jury has a “right” to nullify a law, but it is immune from prosecution for its decision. A jury need never explain its decision.

A judge may, but need not, instruct the attorney that nullification cannot be argued to the jury. With or without an instruction, it is forbidden. The lawyer breaking that rule is asking for Rule 11 sanctions and a referral to the bar.

[A K A Stone #16] A few years ago I seriously considered doing the same thing. I think it is free speech myself.

One guy’s free speech in another guy’s felony. The guys who think its a felony are judges and lawyers and legislators.

As you could not be sanctioned the same as a lawyer, if you tried to argue jury nullification in court, you would likely be warned the instant you tried, and held in contempt if you continued.

[TooConservative #20] Any judge or prosecutor can give some background info on jury nullification under the British common law and the extent to which it might be reasonably applied in modern trials (to them, pretty much never).

It cannot be argued to a jury, but nothing can stop a jury from doing it by their own choosing.

[jeremiad #24] There is no better publicity or example of illegitimacy of a law than when people are arrested merely for exercising their right to speak freely in the public square.

He can take out a full page ad in the New York Times, run an ad on network tv, get on a soapbox in the public square or at Speaker’s Corner, but he cannot target jurors at the entrance of a courthouse. Well, he can, but it is a felony.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   19:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#35)

It is not that the jury has a “right” to nullify a law, but it is immune from prosecution for its decision. A jury need never explain its decision.

I would say it is a de facto right, insofar as it cannot be taken away from them by any legal means whatsoever. Putting the word in quotes, therefore, incorrectly conveys the nature of the right.

Granted it's not a statutory right, and I wouldn't call it a Constitutional Right either. I would call it a natural right and a de facto right, and any instruction to the jury by the judge to the contrary would be a lie. I'm sure though that judges normally word their instructions in such a way that it doesn't tell the jury they can't do nullification.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-08-05   20:11:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: TooConservative, jeremiad, A Pole, A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#25)

Consider Mark Iannicelli toast.

There are seven counts, all essentially identical.

People v. MARK IANNICELLI

Case No. 15CR03981

Mitchell R. Morrissey, District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, of the State of Colorado, in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Colorado, informs the court of the following offenses committed, or triable, in the county of Denver:

COUNT 1: JURY TAMPERING

On or about July 27, 2015, MARK IANNICELLI, with intent to influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision, and other action in a case, namely: JURY POOL MEMBER, unlawfully and feloniously attempted directly and indirectly to communicate with [REDACTED] a juror, other than as a part of the proceedings in the trials of the case; in violation of section 18-8­609, C.R.S.

It would appear he attempted to communicate with seven (7) jurors or members of the jury pool, other than as a part of the proceedings in the trials of the case.

COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ORIGINAL PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENTS AND ALL AFFIDAVITS FOR ARREST WARRANT

I am a police officer for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, and have knowledge regarding the arrest/incident of the above named party for the below listed offense, which offense occurred on or about the date of 07/27/2015 at 10:18 am at or near the location of 520 W COLFAX AVE in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado.

VIOLATION(S)

DESCRIPTION

18-8-609

INV HOLD-JURY-TAMPERNG (026517)

The probable cause of the arrest of the above-named individual is as follows:
[The defendant, Mark lannicelli (05/05/59), was identified by Denver District Attorney Lamar Simms, as handing out literature in front of 520 W Colfax Ave, the Lindsay Flannigan Court House, to actual and potential state and city jury members. A cardboard sign with “Juror info” was positioned at the entrance to the court house. Several jurors were contacted by Denver Police Intelligence Unit and were found to be in possession of fliers handed out by the defendant. The defendant was identified to reporting officers by members of the intelligence unit. Upon contact, officers explained the reason tor the contact, including that police had been informed of the defendant handing out information to potential jurors. When asked for his name and date of birth, the defendant refused to provide any information. The defendant was taken into custody for investigation of Jury Tampering, and a Colorado Driver’s License was located in his wallet. The fliers were recovered as evidence and were titled, “All You Need To Know About Jury Nullification”.

At the time of the offense, a death penalty case was underway at the same location, 520 W Colfax Ave.]

JUL 28 2015

The officer was identified as MUDLOFF, BRIAN D. Serial No: P06149.

Colorado v Iannicelli, Cty Ct, Denver CO, 15CR03981 (2015) COMPLAINT and INFORMATION (Jury Tampering, 7 Cou...

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   20:19:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)

I would say it is a de facto right, insofar as it cannot be taken away from them by any legal means whatsoever.

It is not a right. They enjoy immunity from prosecution for a crime committed. The Congressman has immunity from prosecution for what he says on the floor of the House. If a diplomat has immunity from prosecution even if he murders someone, he is not held to have the right to commit murder.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   20:23:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A Pole, TooConservative (#32)

It is about rights of the jury in general. Don't you see a difference?

Jury nullification is not about rights, but immunity from prosecution. There is a difference between have a right to do something, and being immune from prosecution. A diplomat could be immune from prosecution for shooting you, but that would not mean he has the right to shoot you.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   20:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Pinguinite (#36)

any instruction to the jury by the judge to the contrary would be a lie. I'm sure though that judges normally word their instructions in such a way that it doesn't tell the jury they can't do nullification.

Any instruction to the jury about jury nullification by any officer of the court would be sanctioned. It is prohibited.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-05   20:29:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 92) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com