Denver's Unconstitutional Crackdown on Jury Nullification Activists

[NightHawkeye]

Denver's Unconstitutional Harassment of Jury Nullification Activists: The City Treats Handing Out Pamphlets Near a Courthouse as a Crime | TownHall

This Saturday is Jury Rights Day, which commemorates the 1670 acquittal of Quaker leader William Penn by English jurors who refused to convict him even though he had clearly violated a ban on dissenting religious assemblies. Denver is celebrating the occasion by harassing activists who seek to inform the public about the principle embodied in Penn's acquittal: the right of jurors to reject the enforcement of unjust laws, a.k.a. jury nullification.
...
The city added that "plaintiffs' proposed intent of peacefully handing out jury nullification literature to or discussing jury nullification with passersby at the plaza, without more, does not violate Colorado law."

Does that mean Morrissey plans to drop the jury tampering charges against Iannicelli and Brandt? Not according to Lynn Kimbrough, Morrissey's public information officer. "Their charges still stand," she says.​

 

[Willtor]

Scary stuff. This kind of free speech is especially important to protect because it helps safeguard the rest.

 

[Vylo]

Yeah, when I got called for jury, they were trying a guy for resisting arrest.

I don't consider that to even be a real crime, anyone with a pulse will resist to at least a small degree, its instinct. And as I said to the judge, "if he resisted arrest, he already got his punishment I'm sure". I was told I wouldn't have to serve .

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, when I got called for jury, they were trying a guy for resisting arrest.

I don't consider that to even be a real crime, anyone with a pulse will resist to at least a small degree, its instinct. And as I said to the judge, "if he resisted arrest, he already got his punishment I'm sure". I was told I wouldn't have to serve .

I told the judge I could tell if a guy was guilty just by looking at him. I was told I wouldn't have to serve.

 

[Jan Volkes]

What I would like to know is, what constitutes an 'unfair law'? who decides what's unfair and what isn't?
are we talking about mob rule here?

 

[NightHawkeye]

What I would like to know is, what constitutes an 'unfair law'? who decides what's unfair and what isn't?
are we talking about mob rule here?

Already answered in the OP's title. On this side of the pond we have a constitution which has served us well for over two hundred years.

 

[Blank Stair]

Scary stuff. This kind of free speech is especially important to protect because it helps safeguard the rest.

Amen!
This is the rubber meets the road time. How dedicated is that activist to risk jail when they're legally entitled and yet unconstitutionally persecuted? Civil disobedience. When it makes the news and more people become aware of the violations that are happening against citizens rights the more scrutiny is put on the violators.

 

[Blank Stair]

I told the judge I could tell if a guy was guilty just by looking at him. I was told I wouldn't have to serve.

Ya think?

I have to remember that if I'm ever called again.
I told the judge, and it all goes on the record so it does probably come back to haunt us on our permanent record stowed away somewhere in the recesses of the executive branch authority, that I believed the system couldn't be trusted. And therefore I didn't feel I could judge a persons future based on what I don't trust is happening before the case ever arrives before a jury.

I didn't have to serve either. I tried to leave when I was finished my spiel only to find they lock the doors in the courtroom during voir dire. There I am all ready to leave because I'd just told you I'm not going to serve and the door won't open to let me the heck out! Then when I got to my car finally after they did let us all out I found I left my lights on and my battery was dead. So I still couldn't get the heck out of there. There's a sign for ya.

 

[Jan Volkes]

What I would like to know is, what constitutes an 'unfair law'? who decides what's unfair and what isn't?
are we talking about mob rule here?

Already answered in the OP's title. On this side of the pond we have a constitution which has served us well for over two hundred years.

Is how we see the US now what you call being 'served well'? I would hate to see it if it wasn't being 'served well'.
What baffles us Europeans is the fact that you really don't know just how badly off the US is, do you?

Am I glad the UK does not have a constitution.

 

[Tallguy88]

Is how we see the US now what you call being 'served well'? I would hate to see it if it wasn't being 'served well'.
What baffles us Europeans is the fact that you really don't know just how badly off the US is, do you?

Am I glad the UK does not have a constitution.

Jury Nullification is a hold over from English legal tradition. So you can't blame the USA for having it when we were just following the legal traditions of England.

 

[AirPo]

What I would like to know is, what constitutes an 'unfair law'? who decides what's unfair and what isn't?
are we talking about mob rule here?

Already answered in the OP's title. On this side of the pond we have a constitution which has served us well for over two hundred years.

Are you suggesting that the crackdown is a legal unfair law or that jury nullification is a legal unfasir law?

 

[Willtor]

What I would like to know is, what constitutes an 'unfair law'? who decides what's unfair and what isn't?
are we talking about mob rule here?

Jury nullification is not illegal. It's played an important role in our country's history, especially when people were being prosecuted for helping slaves to escape. It's been used for less savory means, too, but if we still had slavery, I wouldn't convict a person for helping them to escape.

 

[Tallguy88]

Jury nullification is not illegal. It's played an important role in our country's history, especially when people were being prosecuted for helping slaves to escape. It's been used for less savory means, too, but if we still had slavery, I wouldn't convict a person for helping them to escape.

It's also been used when juries feel the punishment far outweighs the crime. For example, Georgia law used to proscribe the death penalty for Snake Handling Pentecostals. But that was such a harsh sentence, juries would refuse to convict, until the law was repealed.

 

[Willtor]

It's also been used when juries feel the punishment far outweighs the crime. For example, Georgia law used to proscribe the death penalty for Snake Handling Pentecostals. But that was such a harsh sentence, juries would refuse to convict, until the law was repealed.

I didn't know about this one.

Yeah, it's hard to argue that someone should be made to convict a person based on what they perceive to be an unjust law (or unjust punishment).

 

[Poor Beggar]

Our constitution didn't create that, although I agree with you 100% about our condition. What created that is this new idea from the deconstructionist who try to convince us that language is a hazy thing and the constitution is "vague" as if a bunch of smart guys didn't sit down and figure out how to word things so people wouldn't worm out of it. So, that's where we're at now--nothing means anything.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Jury nullification is not illegal. It's played an important role in our country's history, especially when people were being prosecuted for helping slaves to escape. It's been used for less savory means, too, but if we still had slavery, I wouldn't convict a person for helping them to escape.

Right. It's just another one of our checks and balances and, as usual, the judicial branch isn't liking how the rules work. That's been a trend recently....

 

[Poor Beggar]

Jury Nullification is a hold over from English legal tradition. So you can't blame the USA for having it when we were just following the legal traditions of England.

I didn't even know that.

 

[brinny]

I told the judge I could tell if a guy was guilty just by looking at him. I was told I wouldn't have to serve.

LOL!

 

[brinny]

Our constitution didn't create that, although I agree with you 100% about our condition. What created that is this new idea from the deconstructionist who try to convince us that language is a hazy thing and the constitution is "vague" as if a bunch of smart guys didn't sit down and figure out how to word things so people wouldn't worm out of it. So, that's where we're at now--nothing means anything.

Sounds like the movie 1984 sorta'....

have you seen it?

 

[brinny]

Scary stuff. This kind of free speech is especially important to protect because it helps safeguard the rest.

Indeed.