Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.
Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.
[...]
“No legal system could long survive,” they added, “if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”
Umm… Like they are trying to do with this guy by disregarding his 1st Amendment rights?
Well, so-called “Conspiracy Laws” would be next !!! Conspiracy Laws fly in the face of “Freedom of Speech”. Talking about something is NOT THE SAME AS DOING SOMETHING, but “Law Enforcement” has fallen back on “Conspiracy” when they don’t have enough HARD EVIDENCE to link the alleged perpetrators with the alleged crime, so they accuse the accused of “Talking about doing a crime” and generally get convictions because Juries won’t NULLIFY CONSPRIACY LAWS !!!
I’d be OK with professional jurors.
Does the “jury of your peers” phrase mean they have to be amateurs?
With professional jurors, you could set minimum education and logic standards.
The one jury I sat on almost deadlocked because one of our members simply couldn’t be logical.
She insisted on acquitting him because his kids were cute. (No kidding!) To be honest, we basically bullied her into voting guilty.
You mean, like in the south, how Southern Democrats fought tooth and nail for segregation. That they should just be able to decide they don’t agree with the federal law and do what ever they want? Like that????
“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.”
And yet we allow medical workers (pharmisists etc.) to refuse service or treatment for ‘personal standards’ and beliefs? Funny how both *opposing* positions are both products of ‘right’ thinking.