His speech is not protected by the First Amendment….

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/feds-jury- ... ed-speech/

"Retired chemistry professor Julian Heicklen is facing imprisonment for advocating jury nullification to passersby, following an indictment by federal prosecutors last year, according to the New York Times. He stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan and handed out brochures on the subject.

According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred…. His speech is not protected by the First Amendment…. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”

Meanwhile, a representative of the New York Civil Liberties Union has shot back: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification.".....................

...let's see the conviction.

Just like "no legal system could long survive" with other crazy notions like:

Really having freedom of religion and freedom of thought. In fact with this guy's perspective, you already do not have freedom of religion...or at least your religion cannot include NOT being judged by peers....in fact your religion cannot only have you judged by a god (God).

Pretty soon, if not already, they will say the same thing about privacy of any kind and locked front doors. Oh wait, that was years ago, they just haven't finished the laws saying so yet.

All a little bit of a crock, maybe a big crock. I personally kinda like the idea of a Jury vs. just a judge or an accuser, we just need better more consistent laws.

Apparently there are all kinds of exceptions to the stuff they taught us in high school and wrote in the constitution, I guess it is all how you look at it. All the exceptions have not even been discovered yet.

"Judges and prosecutors already take steps to exclude persons who know about jury nullification from actual service. And the standard set of jury instructions says that jurors must “apply the law in the case whether they like it or not.” But the prosecution of Heicklen shows that the government wants to expand its power far beyond the courthouse and outlaw pamphleteering and speech on a controversial subject. Once again the government is trying to go over, around, and right through the Constitution.

For previous coverage and additional info, go here, here, and here."


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/jury-nul ... ee-speech/

I'm the poster boy for Jury Nullification...Remember friends, when you're on a jury, you make the law..The Judge can advise you, but youre the man..If you think some guy in Jefferson killed a Elk out of season to eat it is not breaking the law, then it's not breaking the law

Remember that

VL, didn't you just do what the guy in the article did? Ballsy.

But you're saying if I think it is ok, it is now legal, so I don't have to turn you in or convict you?

:Whistle

You want me on your jury...Unless you did something really bad, youre gonna go home that day..


Because who i'm I to judge another human?

Sounds like I want you on my jury. I generally have the same view. I have been amazed that the opinions I have shared with courts and been KEPT on the jury. I have even spent a day on a jury in a jailhouse jumpsuit that the judge ordered me to wear on a trail where I told them I had made the judgment before the trial started and would not change my mind without one specific insane action having taken place. The jumpsuit was not even explained to the court or those on trial.

How to you feel about the truth?

If you are asked did a guy break a law and he did...do you answer the question differently if you think the guy asking the question will do something different to the accused based on your answer.

It is a tough one and if you find a murderer guilty in a capitol state, are you responsible for his death?....I would feel guilty if I was on the Jury and they put him to death based on my verdict (based on a simple observation or decision where I told the truth), but to me the one that killed/murdered the guy is the the one that pulls the lever or presses the button or whatever...it is not even the one that told him directly to do so or the one that passed the law that allows him to do so without criminal action brought against him (or the new sue the criminal technique).

When you are on the Jury, you are the law. If I don't think he/she should be locked up, hHe/she is not guilty on all charges. I'm not leaving it up to the judge, and

We shouldn't give the government the authority to kill anyone, and warehousing caged people is not the answer either. We gotta lock some people up but only a very small fraction of we are doing now.

Jury nullification is the basis of our freedoms in the United States. That scares those who love power.