Please prosecute someone so we can have the circus tent media come to town and shine thy divine lenses upon this most important rule of law.
What would happen to our exploding victimless criminal prison population if this were posted on every courtroom door:
“It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” - John Adams
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/
A few weeks ago, the writers of The Wire wrote an article in Time vowing if that if any of them were ever called to serve on a jury in a drug case, they’d engage in jury nullification, and refuse to convict.
Over at the blog of criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett, a Texas prosecutor has put up an astonishing guest post arguing that merely advocating for jury nullification is in itself a crime, and that the authors of the Time article have violated Texas law.
The writers of The Wire, in advocating the actions that they have, are essentially promoting the commission of a crime. Had they made the statements contained in the Time magazine article in Texas, then they would almost certainly be guilty of aggravated perjury. Outrageous, no? How dare I suggest that the exercise of their First Amendment rights could possibly constitute a crime? Pretty easily, actually. Just look at the law.
This is not only absurd, it’s reckless. It’s a direct attack on free expression by a government agent. He’s arguing that anyone in Texas who advocates for jury nullification is committing a crime—and by definition then risks prosecution. And this argument is coming from a man who has the power and the position to carry out just such a prosecution.
If this guy can look at a magazine article advocating a jury power that dates back to the founding of the country and see a crime, one could be forgiven for looking at his blog post and seeing a man who lacks the proper temperament, good judgment, and respect for civil liberties to continue to serve as a prosecutor.
Someone might also want to notify noted nullification expert and advocate Clay Conrad, who who happens to live Houston, Texas. I’m sure the SWAT team’s on its way.
Headline reference here.
MORE: Here’s Tim Lynch, my former boss at Cato, in the comments section to the post:
The Framers of the American Constitution would be shocked by the way in which jurors are presently manipulated. Our second president, John Adams, once wrote that “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” The prosecutor comes pretty close to saying that such words can no longer be repeated in the state of Texas. If a talk radio host says the same words–jail. If a newspaper columnist quotes or paraphrases Adams–jail. If someone puts the Adams quote on a sign and walks around Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio–jail.
I don’t think he’s foolish enough to actually bring charges against anyone for merely advocating nullification. But the mere implication that a prosecutor could is itself an attack on free expression.
One of the things I worry about with jury nullification is a potential backfire. What if rural juries in Mississippi were unwilling to convict someone charged with killing an abortion doctor? Or if an all white jury refused to convict a white man for killing a black man? It's a fine line....
posted by Ace_Face on Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:52 am #