Fully Informed Jury Association

The trial of farmer Vernon Hershberger of Wisconsin on 4 victimless counts related to mutually consensual distribution of raw milk to adults ran longer than expected, wrapping up early this morning. Hershberger, who operated a private club for people who wanted raw milk, was found Not Guilty on charges of operating an unlicensed retail store that sold raw milk and other products, and operating a dairy farm and dairy processing facility without licenses.

Dairy farmer acquitted on three of four charges

Dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger was acquitted on three of four criminal charges early Saturday morning in a trial that’s drawn national attention from supporters of the raw, unpasteurized milk movement.

Jurors in Sauk County District Court deliberated about four hours, until nearly 1 a.m. Saturday, before returning a verdict of guilty on one charge of violating a holding order placed on products on the Hershberger farm, following a raid on the farm in the summer of 2010.

The defense attorney asked jurors to use “common sense” and to question why the state would take such a heavy-handed approach in prosecuting Hershberger.

“This is as close to Prohibition as anything I have ever seen, but this time it’s milk and an Amish farmer, rather than liquor and gangsters,” Reynolds said.

Hershberger was found Guilty of violating a holding order placed on products from his farm-a situation that he was only put in when the government pursued him for the alleged violations of which the jury found him Not Guilty. Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection raided his farm in June 2010, destroying 2,000 pounds of milk. Hershberger faces up to a year in jail and up to $10,000 fine for this charge.

After the acquittal of Minnesota farmer Alvin Schlangen on similarly victimless charges related to raw milk, food freedom supporters around the country have been focused on this trial to see if jury nullification would play a role.
Crowds of supporters to attend farmer’s raw-milk trial

Whether the case sets a legal precedent remains to be seen. But it’s significant for anyone interested in unpasteurized milk for health reasons, said Vince Hundt, a raw-milk advocate from Coon Valley.

People are getting the product directly from farms illegally, according to Hundt.

“The state is watching the law being steadily eroded. . . . If you are a thoughtful person and a reader these days, there’s just a blast of new information about food and health. And there’s a rapidly rising enthusiasm for food like unpasteurized milk,” he said.

The trial’s jury selection is scheduled to take place Monday with about 130 prospective jurors. There are about 70 people on the witness list, according to Hershberger’s supporters.

The farmer’s fate could hinge on a legal tactic called jury nullification, under which jurors vote their conscience in a case regardless of the facts and the law. Hershberger’s supporters have encouraged the tactic, although it’s generally known that judges and prosecutors reject it.

The holding order violation has so far been unique to the Hershberger case. The acquittals on the licensing charges add to the precedent being set by juries, starting with the Schlangen case, that they are not convicting raw milk providers on victimless licensing and branding types of violations. It is not clear why the jury chose to convict on the holding order violation in the Hershberger case, but trial reports do indicate that the judge kept a very tight rein on what the jury was permitted to hear, with the jury being escorted out of the courtroom more than once as information he did not want them to hear came up.

Hershberger Trial: List of Things You Can’t Say and Wear Gets Bigger

Let it be known that the jury has been frequently shoo-ed from the room anytime the judge felt that something truthful was about to be uttered on the stand. I bet they wondered what they were missing and why they weren’t allowed to hear it.

List of things struck from the trial – this stems from the judge’s agreement with prosecution before the trial began. He has sided with the State every step of the way:

Defense is not allowed to talk of defendant’s personal liberty – no talk of liberty allowed
The words “raw milk” are not allowed to be spoken during the trial.
No talk about safety or health reasons – this made it impossible for witnesses to talk about why they went to his farm.
According to Josh Tolley, talk of “natural foods” was not allowed.
No talk of whether there was criminal intent in not obtaining a license – Note: shouldn’t that right there be cause for jury nullification? Can’t talk about criminal intent – then where is the crime? Also, you can’t obtain a license for fresh food or memberships in Wisconsin!
Photos from the farm were argued against and called “irrelevant.”
No discussion of why his farm was initially raided in 2010.
No talk of herd shares or memberships – how did the witnesses discuss? Very carefully, see below
A woman wearing a “Got Initiative?” shirt was told to remove it before entering because it hinted at a reference. A picture of her appears on one of the Facebook updates I’m watching.
Mark McAffe was ordered to cover his shirt because it said: “get raw milk.”
A teenager wearing a “Raw Milk Me” button was asked to remove it before entering.

This is a huge embarrassment for the prosecution not to be able to secure convictions on most of the charges, even with the judge so blatantly tilting the playing field in favor of the prosecution. It will be interesting to see if any jurors come forward after the trial, once they find out from perusing the media from which they were isolated during the trial exactly how much information was withheld from them. The raw milk trials are widely seen by the food freedom community as political cases being brought abusively against peaceful people providing a desired good to willing and knowledgeable customers in order to support government protectionism for big dairies.

Tags: Alvin Schlangen, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, jury rights, jury veto, justice, nullification, raw milk, rights, Saulk County, Vernon Hershberger, Wisconsin

Matt Kaiser discusses on The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog a recent First Circuit firearms-related case in which the court seems to encourage jury nullification in marginal cases to check prosecutorial overreach. In the case of United States v. Baird, the accused had bought a firearm from another person, not knowing that the weapon had been stolen. The buyer was then prosecuted for being in possession of a stolen gun, even though he had been unaware that this was the case when he purchased it. Baird was convicted of one count of possession of a stolen firearm, for which he was sentenced to a $100 special assessment, one month in jail, and two years of supervised release.

Did The First Circuit Encourage Jury Nullification?

Mr. Baird wanted an “innocent possession” instruction. He wanted to argue that he didn’t know the gun was stolen when he possessed it and that it got rid of it quickly after having learned it was.

The district court refused to give that instruction, relying on cases that said there’s no “innocent possession” defense in a possession of a stolen gun case, relying on United States v. Teemer, a prior First Circuit case on whether there’s an innocent possession defense to a felon in possession charge.

The First Circuit, reversing on the failure to give the instruction, acknowledge that Teemer held there was no such defense, but then said,

But that is not all Teemer said. While Teemer declined to create a “mandatory safe harbor” for innocent possession, it also acknowledged that “there are circumstances that arguably come within the letter of the law but in which conviction would be unjust,” such as if a felon snatched away a loaded gun from his school-aged son and then called the police to retrieve it. Therefore, although Teemer relied primarily on prosecutorial discretion and the common sense of the jury to weed out the cases warranting leniency in § 922(g) cases, we have simultaneously recognized that “extraordinary cases might arise where . . . . if the government were foolish enough to prosecute, some caveat might indeed be needed (e.g., an instruction on a necessity or justification defense.)”

I’m not sure how to read that, except as licensing a very limited kind of jury nullification.

Click through for the entire article including a link to the court opinion and references from court opinions in other marginal cases where the courts have expressed skepticism over the notion of simply trusting the government not to prosecute people maliciously.

There is clearly some level of recognition in the legal system that abusive prosecutions need to be checked, although it is unfortunately accompanied by widespread aversion to acknowledging the traditional authority of the independent juror in filling this role. In fact, jurors can and should check prosecutorial abuse by voting Not Guilty-even if a law has technically been broken-when setting aside an unjust or unjustly applied law is required for a just verdict.

Tags: First Circuit, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, nullification, rights, Second Amendment, United States v. Baird

Jury nullification makes a prominent appearance in the public discourse again this week in the state of New York, where activists are continuing to protest the state’s so-called “SAFE Act”. The act created numerous additional victimless violations and increased sentences for other victimless violations. While activists are working to amend or repeal the measure, Rob Arrigo of the Campaign for Liberty pointed out at the rally that jurors need not be complicit in enforcing the law against peaceful people who have harmed nobody. Jurors can protect individuals’ Second Amendment rights by voting Not Guilty.

Gun control law sparks protest outside Capitol

Opponents of the SAFE gun control act gathered on the east steps of the state Capitol on Tuesday to denounce Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders, and to press for the law’s full repeal.

Hosted by the NY2A Grassroots Coalition, the rally attracted about 400 participants at its peak. Speakers included the repeal measure’s legislative sponsor, Hudson Valley Republican Assemblyman Steve Katz, as well as Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff prominent in conservative circles.

Other speakers advised the crowd not to register their weapons and counseled them on the importance of “jury nullification” when faced with a law one deems to be unconstitutional.

Third anti-SAFE Act rally held in Capitol park

Rob Arrigo, Saratoga County coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, told supporters there were two words to nullify the SAFE Act in the courts – “Not guilty.”

“The principle of jury nullification is simple. It is the duty of the independent juror to judge not only the guilt of the defendant in the law,” Arrigo explained to activists. “But also to judge the law itself.”

Arrigo, like his supporters, says the SAFE Act is unconstitutional and jurors can find those charged under the law not guilty based on that premise.

Tags: Albany, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, New York, nullification, rights, SAFE Act, Second Amendment

Friday, 24 May 2013
7:30 am Eastern
104.5 FM WFLA in Orlando, FL

Kirsten Tynan will be talking about jury nullification with Scott Duncan live on 104.5 FM WFLA in Orlando, FL. Tune in locally or listen live online from anywhere to learn more about jurors’ role in protecting our rights by refusing to enforce bad laws. There may be a call-in opportunity following the interview. Listen in for details.

Tags: juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, nullification, Orlando, rights, WFLA

We have more news this morning that FIJA’s educational outreach efforts are paying off through the hard work of activists nationwide, this time from San Diego, California:

Filner Urges ‘Jury Nullification’ In Medical Pot Dispensary Case

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner has injected himself into a federal criminal case against the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary, intensifying his standoff with federal prosecutors on cannabis enforcement issues.

Filner’s urging jurors who’ll be chosen for the trial to reject federal law in favor of state statutes under a centuries-old legal concept known as “jury nullification”– whereby jurors can refuse to convict people under laws they believe should not be applied.

It’s a bold, brash move that’s potentially controversial and politically risky for a mayor.

But that’s not atypical of the former “Freedom Rider” who served two months of jail time in Mississippi during the early years of the Civil Rights Era.

“It’s time, like with Prohibition, to step back and say this was a stupid thing to do,” Filner said outside the courthouse. “Let’s step back, and juries ought to take the lead and say that to the federal government…and if the federal government isn’t listening to the mayor, maybe they’ll listen to the jury.”

Click through for the entire article.

Not only was Mayor Filner’s passionate advocacy of justice through fully informed juries covered by the local NBC affiliate, but this news was also carried by U-T San Diego:

Filner urges jurors to reject medpot case

In a statement released through Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group, Filner endorsed a controversial legal concept called jury nullification.

This occurs when a jury acquits someone of the charges against them, even if they believe the person to be guilty, if they disagree with the law that the defendant is charged with. It allows individual jurors to follow their conscience, but critics say it violates the juror’s basic role — to determine the facts in a case and apply the law to reach a result.

In the statement, Filner said jury nullification allows the people’s “will to prevail.” He said that the concept “holds that jurors have a right and even a duty to vote their conscience if they feel the government is engaged in injustice.”

Filner reportedly had a conversation prior to the press conference with Terrie Best, San Diego Americans for Safe Access Court Support Coordinator, who points to FIJA’s website for information on jurors’ traditional, legal authority to nullify.
Mayor Filner to Speak at Press Conference Against Gag Order in Federal Medical Marijuana Case

Upon learning of the Chang case, Mayor Filner spoke with Terrie Best, San Diego Americans for Safe Access Court Support Coordinator and issued the following statement on Thursday, May 16, 2013:

“In cases like these, where Ronnie Chang will face a jury of his peers, jurors may be faced with decisions about unjust laws. There is a mechanism for the peoples’ will to prevail. It is called jury nullification and holds that jurors have a right and even a duty to vote their conscience if they feel the government is engaged in injustice. In voting to acquit victims of unjust laws, jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.”

Terrie Best points to a website, www.Fija.org (Fully Informed Jury Association) where the public is encouraged to read about jury nullification, its history and why our forefathers set up the jury of twelve peers trial system in order to protect against tyranny of government.

Click through for the entire article.

Many thanks to Terrie Best and to all the FIJA activists educating Californians about their right when serving on a jury to refuse to enforce unjust or unjustly applied laws and their responsibility to protect defendants and all of us from abusive prosecutions by government.

Tags: California, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, Mayor Bob Filner, medical marijuana, nullificatioin, rights, San Diego

Thanks to Bill St. Clair for this article from End the War on Freedom discussing jury nullification as a right and duty of jurors when a just verdict requires it:

Your Right and Duty to Acquit

If you serve on a jury in a criminal trial, the judge will likely tell you that his job is to interpret the law, and to inform you about it, and that your job is only to determine whether the defendant did the thing of which (s)he was accused. Wrong.

The judge is the referee of the proceedings. His job is to maintain order, and to ensure that witnesses are sworn in, and properly questioned and cross-examined.

The job of a jury is to protect citizens from the awesome power of the state. If the state does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, if the statute allegedly violated does not involve a real crime, if the punishment is too severe, it is your right and duty to acquit, denying the state the power to cage a human being like an animal.

Click through for the entire article.

Tags: juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, nullification, rights

Free Keene has posted a letter from recently convicted marijuana activist Rich Paul sent from jail. In the letter, he discusses his plans for an appeal based in part on the instructions against jury nullification given by the judge to the jury.

Rich Paul needs your help with his appeal

My spirits remain high, despite my setback, and I have hope, still, for my appeal! I have been responding to every letter I have received!

The stakes on my appeal are much higher than just what happens to me. The primary issue on appeal will be the anti-nullification jury instructions which the judge gave my jury. A successful appeal will set a precedent for all future attempts at Jury Nullification… which is much more important than where I spend my next couple of years! If you care about Jury Nullification, please donate to this cause! Only appeals courts create binding precedent!

Paul is raising money to hire an attorney to mount his appeal. Click through for the entire letter, including information on contributing to his legal defense fund.

Tags: Cheshire County, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury rights, jury veto, justice, New Hampshire, nullification, Rich Paul, rights

Louis R. Jasikoff and John DiLiberto of the Wilkes-Barre Independent Gazette recently delivered a letter to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judges inquiring into their views on jury nullification. The letter reads, in part:

FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) and Juror Rights

Our question to each of you is simple and straight to the point. Where do you stand on this issue? We would like to know what would happen in your courtroom if a defense attorney were to relate this nullification information notifying the jurors that they not only possessed the right to judge a case based on its facts, but to judge the law itself.

Would they be cited for contempt or face even harsher penalties?

We’re going to pose a hypothetical question and one for which we’d like a direct answer. It is not intended as a typical “gotcha” question, but intended only to get to the heart of the matter, and should clearly indicate your stance regarding jury nullification. We’re letting you know the question beforehand, so you have ample time to formulate your response.

In most courtrooms today the judge will instruct the jury to uphold the law as he presents it to them. Now, if Rosa Parks were to appear in your courtroom today, would you permit her defense attorney to instruct the jury regarding its prerogatives and obligations without fear of sanctions?

Click through for the entire letter.

Jasikoff and DiLiberto plan to publish any responses they receive in the Wilkes-Barre Independent Gazette. We look forward to it!

Tags: juror rights, juror veto, jurors' rights, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, nullification, rights, Wilkes-Barre Independent Gazette

2 May 2013

Deputy Park County Attorney Kathleen Carrick
Seeks to Prevent Montana Jurors from Being Fully Informed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (406) 442-7800; aji@fija.org

Helena, MT—Deputy Park County Attorney Kathleen Carrick recently filed a Motion in Limine in a Park County, Montana court in the case of The State of Montana v. Joel Elmer Boniek that appears, among other things, to be aimed at preventing jurors from being fully informed of their right to refuse to enforce unjust or unjustly applied laws.

The motion asks the Court to exclude any evidence or references by witnesses or the defendant to jury nullification or challenging the Constitutionality of any law. It further seeks to gag private individuals exercising free speech protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Constitution of Montana by prohibiting distribution of any pamphlets at or around the court house on the day of the trial. Such a gag order would prohibit volunteers from distributing educational materials produced by the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) to inform everyone of the traditional, legal authority of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts of a case at hand and to rely on their consciences in coming to a just verdict.

It is unclear whether Carrick is unfamiliar with the long legal history of jurors’ right of nullification and of everyone’s right to use of the public sidewalk for the exercise of First Amendment rights, or whether she is willfully choosing to ignore laws she finds inconvenient. FIJA Executive Director Iloilo Jones asks for clarification from Carrick regarding her obvious legal gaffes. “As a government employee, what is her stance on protecting human rights? What is her stance on freedom of speech? Why is she afraid of jurors being fully informed?” asks Jones.

The right of jurors to judge both the facts of the case and the justice of the law as it is applied has been recognized repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court, as early as the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford. In this case Chief Justice John Jay wrote in charging the jury that, “You have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” In its 1906 decision in the case of State v. Koch, the Montana Supreme Court also upheld jury nullification, ruling that, “It has nevertheless always been recognized in practice in this jurisdiction, that the jury has the power to disregard the law as declared and acquit the defendant, however convincing the evidence may be, and that the court or judge has no power to punish them for such conduct.” No U.S. Supreme Court or Montana Supreme Court ruling has ever overturned this role of the jury in protecting human rights.

Just as jury rights have been upheld at the highest levels of our court system, so too have our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press and public expression. Such rights are a key check on government, guaranteed to us by design in order to prevent it from overstepping the very Constitutional bounds that Carrick’s motion seeks to sweep under the rug. In the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of New York Times Co. v. United States, regarding government censorship by prior restraint, Justice Hugo Black clearly explained this essential function: “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

FIJA National Coordinator Kirsten Tynan notes the telling nature of the very first line item of Carrick’s list, requesting that the defendant and witnesses be barred from discussing the Constitution. “Is it any surprise that Carrick’s motion requests prohibition of any mention of the failure of law to meet Constitutional muster given that she seems willing to cast it aside when it does not suit her?” asks Tynan.

In the event that this abusive motion results in an order from the court violating First Amendment rights, FIJA asks volunteers to exercise peaceful forbearance and not violate any such order. Those who choose to distribute literature should request clarification from the court as to the exact boundaries of the Constitution-Free Zone it intends to enforce and distribute literature everywhere else outside those boundaries. Those who are told by government agents that they cannot distribute FIJA literature in public places should contact the FIJA office at (406) 442-7800 or aji@fija.org with as many details as possible of such orders.

About the Fully Informed Jury Association
FIJA is a non-profit association dedicated to educating the general public about their full rights, powers, and responsibilities in delivering just verdicts as trial jurors. The organization publishes and distributes educational literature and maintains a web site at FIJA.org to inform the general public of their Constitutional authority to protect human rights by refusing to enforce bad laws. FIJA encourages all jurors to consult their consciences when deliberating over a case, and to refuse to enforce any law that violates the human rights of the defendant.

Contact Information:
Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)
(406) 442-7800
aji@fija.org
P.O. Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570

###

Carrick’s Motion In Limine: State of Montana v. Joel Elmer Boniek Motion in Limine (.pdf)

Opinion of the Court: 3 U.S. 1 Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)

Concurrence (Black): 403 U.S. 713 New York Times Co. v. United States

Tags: Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Carrick, First Amendment, free speech, freedom of press, freedom of speech, Joel Boniek, juror veto, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, Montana, nullification, Park County, rights

18 April 2013

Judge in Rich Paul Case Undermines Informed Jury Law
with Misinformation in Jury Instructions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (406) 442-7800; aji@fija.org

Helena, MT—A Cheshire County, New Hampshire jury convicted local marijuana and liberty activist Rich Paul today on five felony counts of victimless drug charges. Paul had disputed one of the charges on the facts and had openly pursued jury nullification on the other four charges, which involved the sale of small amounts of marijuana. The buyer turned out to be an FBI-paid informant who had entrapped Paul in exchange for leniency for his own heroin offense.

In 2012, New Hampshire passed HB 146, a fully informed jury bill, which guaranteed defendants the ability in court “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” The measure took effect on January 1 of this year.

While the defense did make the case for jury nullification, the judge undermined the intent of the law through misinformation in the instructions he issued to the jury. An attendee at the trial reported on the Free Keene Facebook page that, “Judge John C. Kissinger is reading jury instructions, where he is emphasizing the word “I” in his claim that the jury “must follow the law as *I* explain it”.”

Iloilo Jones, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association comments that, “This is a case in which a dishonest judge committed perjury in the instructions, by speaking against the authority of the jurors of New Hampshire. He used the influence of office and costume to persuade uninformed jurors to sacrifice the authority of conscience and the true role of jurors. Judge Kissinger intoned once again from the robe of office to confuse and convince the intimidated jurors to obey the laws of the government. It is no surprise that completely confused jurors would scatter in disarray before the overwhelming and intimidating power of the state.”

“Few (uninformed) jurors understand that their role is to protect fellow citizens from government tyranny, and that their first consideration is to protect the person on trial from the viciousness, greed, and ambition of government-paid employees of the same government that is making these laws, which violate human rights no less than slavery laws violated human rights,” Jones said. “It was informed jurors who helped to end slavery. Informed jurors today can help end all government abuses of human rights that are committed by government employees. Jurors are to protect people from these cruel laws, which make us slaves of government. Government wishes to own our bodies, our lives, and our productivity.”

FIJA National Coordinator Kirsten Tynan notes the blatant and unfair double standard at work in this case. “Judge Kissinger reportedly refused to include any information about jury nullification in the jury instructions and then explicitly misinformed jurors by telling them that they must follow the law as he gave it to them. He seemed intent on bullying jurors into following the letter of the law, yet he was perfectly willing to undermine it himself with false information in the instructions he delivered to them.”

Jones notes that such bullying behavior has a dramatic and chilling effect on our rights to due process and trial by jury. “If jurors are threatened, taught, and warned not to render a verdict based on their own conscience by the dishonest, government-paid judge running the courtroom, then jury trial even in New Hampshire is a sham designed to uphold the government and its employees and enforcers, rather than what jury trial is meant to be: a protection of the individual person against the ravages, greed, ambition, and dishonesty of government employees, including dishonest judges.”

In the face of such misconduct, says Jones, there is only one just remedy. “A new trial before a fully informed and honestly selected jury, with an honest judge presiding, is necessary in any case where the judge lies to the jury. This case, as with all cases before dishonest judges, must be retried before an informed and unintimidated jury,” said Jones.

About the Fully Informed Jury Association
FIJA is a non-profit association dedicated to educating the general public about their full rights, powers, and responsibilities in delivering just verdicts as trial jurors. The organization publishes and distributes educational literature and maintains a web site at FIJA.org to inform the general public of their Constitutional authority to protect human rights by refusing to enforce bad laws. FIJA encourages all jurors to consult their consciences when deliberating over a case, and to refuse to enforce any law that violates the human rights of the defendant.

Contact Information:
Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)
(406) 442-7800
aji@fija.org
P.O. Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570

###

Tags: Cheshire County, Judge John Kissinger, juror veto, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, Keene, marijuana, New Hampshire, nullification, Rich Paul, rights

We have word that, after deliberating for about 3 hours, the jury returned Guilty verdicts on all five counts in the Rich Paul case this week in New Hampshire. It seems as though the judge in this case gave the jurors some misinformation in his instructions to the jury, stating that they must follow the law as he gave it to them. With both attorneys acknowledging in their closing arguments that the jurors had the right and/or power to acquit the defendant even if they found he had technically violated the law, the judge’s instructions may have confused the issue. We will continue to follow this case for any word of a potential appeal.

Tags: Cheshire County, jury, Jury Nullification, justice, Keene, marijuana, New Hampshire, nullification, Rich Paul, rights

Yesterday the Fully Informed Jury Association spoke with Rich Paul, a New Hampshire man accused of multiple counts of victimless drug offenses who is pursuing a jury nullification strategy in his trial. Paul openly acknowledges sales of several ounces of marijuana and one sale of a compound that’s legal (which has apparently been misidentified by government officials as LSD). He has so far turned down two plea deals, including one that involves no jail time, instead choosing to take his case before a jury and seek a full acquittal for offenses that have harmed nobody. Paul discusses the political nature of his trial, with charges being levied against him in an apparent attempt to coerce him into spying for the FBI inside a political organization of which he is a member.

Fully Informed Jury Association: Please give us a brief rundown of your case.
Rich Paul: I am charged with, I believe, four counts of delivery of marijuana and one count of delivery of purported LSD. The marijuana charges- each delivery was a quarter pound, except for one, which was two ounces- and what was actually sold and delivered in the other count was a drug called 2ci which is legal. I expect to have that count acquitted on the facts, and the other counts-the marijuana counts-I’m going for jury nullification.

FIJA: What led you to pursue jury nullification in this case?
RP: Well, actually, my decision to make those sales in the first place was predicated on, if I get arrested-and, I knew obviously, that I was taking a risk- if I get arrested, this is my chance to strike a blow against the War on Drugs, because usually this kind of charge is faced by some scared kid who doesn’t know his rights, and he’s just afraid. When I got into this fight and moved to New Hampshire, dedicated my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to it, and I’m going to take the risk and I’ll either be the winner or I’ll be a martyr.

FIJA: Ed Forchion mentioned during his legal process in New Jersey that “there’s a pothead on every jury”. He seemed very confident that he would at least get a hung jury. What are your expectations?
RP: My expectation is that I will get an acquittal, actually. Basically, the two people I’m going to be talking to the most are going to be two ministers. Usually the defendant will challenge religious people, but in this case, I thought that if nothing else, they would understand conscientious conviction and taking risks for what you believe in.

FIJA: So the jury has been selected?
RP: Yes, the jury has been selected. We’ve got a group-and this is what I was hoping for-a group that is mostly born right around 1950, so that makes them 18 when I was born in 1968. I figure they’re the most likely to have smoked weed and not gone to prison, and to have thought that the world would not have been a better place had they gone to prison.

FIJA: Do you have legal representation or are you representing yourself?
RP: Actually, I am being represented by a public defender, and I think that’s unique in jury nullification history because normally public defenders won’t argue for jury nullification because it’s common law-it’s not statute. We in New Hampshire got a statute passed that makes jury nullification black letter law so basically that opens up a public defender to make that argument.

FIJA: Is your public defender on board with that?
RP: She’s been great. She’s going to be making the nullification argument. I will be taking the stand and making as much of it as I can, but then she’s going to have to do the rest on close and open.

FIJA: Did the recent law passed in New Hampshire influence your decision to go this route, or would you have done it anyway? In other words, if that law hadn’t been passed, would you still have sought jury nullification?
RP: I probably would have tried to go this route anyway. I would have had to go pro se to do it, and I think that would have been much more difficult because my attorney thought of a lot of things that I did not, so I’m really glad I had her here. I would recommend that if you’re going to go pro se, hire an attorney to sit next to you and give you some advice if you possibly can.

FIJA: Did the long history of juror education activism in Keene, New Hampshire and specifically at the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse influence your decision?
RP: I’ve taken part in that activism, so that and my decision to do this flow from the same source. And also my rally- I’m standing in the middle of the Keene town square right now and we just smoked a joint in protest of the drug war. We do that every afternoon at 4:20. We’ve had up to 150 people out there doing it. I’d hoped to go for jury nullification on my arrests from this rally, which I’ve gotten arrested out here twice, but in New Hampshire, unfortunately, they have ways of snaking you out of a jury trial on misdemeanors so I had to try it again with a felony. (laughs)

Not that I was actively trying to get into this situation. I just wasn’t trying as hard as I could have NOT to get into this situation. I figured sooner or later they would probably come, and that was my chance to win the political battle.

FIJA: And from what I’ve read, it sounds like it definitely is a political case.
RP: Oh, absolutely. The other thing that’s interesting here is that when I was first picked up, I was interviewed by the FBI. They offered to put me back on the street and let me continue selling pot so long as I would wear a wire into the Keene Activist Center, which is a political group. We have nothing to do with drugs. I happen to be a member, and obviously I smoke weed. But it’s not a criminal organization-it’s a political organization. They tried to get me to wear a wire in there and entrap my friends into selling these things so that they could be blackmailed in turn. That’s how this whole thing started. They didn’t want me because I was smoking weed. They wanted me because I’m an anarchist and they thought they could get information out of me.

FIJA: Is that something that is going to come up during the trial?
RP: We’re going to make as much of an issue of it at trial as possible. It’s hard to say how much the judge is going to let in. We expect the prosecutor to hammer us with relevancy objections. I think we will be able to talk about it somewhat because I put a videotape up on YouTube that contains my giving the spiel. Basically, it’s a confession, but then it goes on and talks about my arrest and my experience with the FBI and all that. I was hoping that the prosecutor would be silly enough to actually put that statement into evidence and he did. I think it’s going to help me for the jury to hear it, and to hear it without the possibility of his objecting because it’s a videotaped statement. Whatever I said is whatever I said.

FIJA: And is there a possibility that something you’ve said about jury nullification will get introduced that way?
RP: Well, I did talk about jury nullification in that statement. It’s posted on CopBlock if you want to have a look at it. That videotape will be admitted as evidence. And, of course, I didn’t say anything in it that I didn’t intend to say on the stand anyway. It’s just that way I got mostly the whole thing out. The only thing I didn’t get on it, unfortunately, is I didn’t talk about my medical use of marijuana, but that will probably come out at trial if I can get it in.

Rich Paul’s trial begins today at 11:00 am EDT at the Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene, New Hampshire. It has apparently been delayed a few hours as another marijuana-related trial runs longer than expected.

Tags: juror veto, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, marijuana, New Hampshire, nullification, Rich Paul, rights

More on the Rich Paul trial, which takes place tomorrow:

Activist Facing 81 Years Admits to Selling Pot, Seeks Jury Nullification

Rich Paul, the founder of the New Hampshire based 4:20 Foundation, is facing four felony charges for selling marijuana.

The trial is set to start on April 16th, 2013 at Cheshire Superior Court in Keene, NH. Paul has admitted to the selling the pot and is going to be seeking jury nullification; the common-law right of juries to acquit a guilty defendant when the law is unjust or misapplied. Add the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the mix and the story gets much more interesting.

On May 31st, 2012 Paul was arrested in Keene, NH by Keene Police. When he arrived at the Keene Police Department he was interviewed by Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Phillip Christiana, assigned to the joint terrorism task force out of the Manchester, New Hampshire office. Agent Christiana alleged that an informant had made multiple purchases of controlled substances from Paul and indicated that the maximum sentence he would face was 81 years in prison.

Agent Christiana then offered to make the charges against Rich “go away”. If Rich would agree to wear a wire into the Keene Activist Center, surreptitiously record the other activists, and persuade them to sell drugs to Paul, the charges would disappear.Rich doesn’t recall being asked if anybody at the KAC even sold illegal drugs.

Rich Paul took a heroic stand, rejecting the offer and instead informing his fellow activists of the Agent Christiana’s request. Rather than fleeing the State or the Country, Paul has elected to fight the charges in his own way.

Click through for the entire article.

One correction to the article: Jurors in New Hampshire have always had the legal rights to judge the law as well as the facts in a case at hand and to refuse to enforce unjust or unjustly applied laws. The law passed in New Hampshire in 2012 with regard to jury nullification did not, therefore, legalize jury nullification as incorrectly stated in the article. What New Hampshire HB 146 did was to “perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury” by requiring that “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” In other words, the change made by the New Hampshire law was to require that the defense be allowed to inform the jury of the rights it already had to judge the law as well as the facts of the case and to refuse to convict if justice requires it even though a law may have technically been broken.

Tags: juror veto, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, Keene, marijuana, New Hampshire, nullification, Rich Paul, rights

Today’s Freedom Friday features Keene, NH marijuana activist Rich Paul, who was arrested for victimless drug-related offenses. Paul states that he was targeted because of his political associations by FBI agent Philip Christiana, who Paul says tried to blackmail him with the threat of 81 years incarceration in an effort to coerce him to spy for the government on the pro-liberty movement in New Hampshire. In Paul’s own words:

Christiana spoke with me about what he intended for me to do. He wanted me to return to the KAC wearing a hidden transmitter, and to lie about the reason for my arrest, and to determine how people reacted, and who questioned my story. This was clearly not the actual intent of the whole operation. He repeatedly told me “You are going to have to do things that you don’t want to do”. I asked him “Like what?”. He said that some of my friends would be selected, and I would be expected to lure them into felonious drug transactions with me, in order that they could be blackmailed in the same way. I told him that if I knew anybody who was making a bomb or planning violence that I would have come to him, rather than waiting for him to come to me. He did not seem to care. He veered from solicitous to aggressive, at one point suggesting that “nobody had to go to prison”, but at another saying that “somebody was going to go to prison, it was all about who”. I answered that it was not about that, it was about right and wrong.

Paul is now charged for victimless crimes related to sales of just about a pound of marijuana over the course of a few months. His trial begins Tuesday, April 16th at Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene, NH. He has refused to take a plea deal, instead opting for a jury trial. Just last year New Hampshire passed legislation specifically allowing defendants to make the case for jury nullification before their juries. Keene, New Hampshire activists also have a history of years of consistent juror education outreach in Cheshire County, especially at Cheshire County Superior Court.

More on Paul’s situation and what he experienced at the hands of the FBI can be found via CopBlock and via Free Keene.

If you would like to recommend a jury-related video for Freedom Friday, let us know in the FIJA forum or by sending an e-mail to us at aji(at)fija.org.

Tags: juror veto, jury, Jury Nullification, jury veto, justice, Keene, marijuana, New Hampshire, nullification, outreach, Philip Christiana, Rich Paul, rights

Fully Informed Jury Association
Web Manager

Request for Proposals

11 April 2013

Project Summary
The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) maintains the website FIJA.org to educate the public about jurors’ full legal authority in defending human rights. It also has social media presence via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and VideoJug to further this mission. FIJA also maintains a self-help legal clinic and law library companion website at FreedomLaw.com.

FIJA seeks a creative, enthusiastic, proactive, professional individual who will assess the current effectiveness of our overall web presence both in terms of educational outreach and fundraising effectiveness, suggest potential changes to increase effectiveness in both these areas, and implement such changes as FIJA administration deems appropriate. The web manager would be responsible not only for FIJA’s websites, but also for managing FIJA’s overall web presence including online social media presence, online press distribution, and so on.

The individual selected for this position will be knowledgeable about FIJA’s mission and programs, work cooperatively as a team member in harmony with FIJA policies and strategy to pursue that mission, and be proactive in informing FIJA staff about new online tools and media which we can use to further FIJA’s mission. The web manager must have a good understanding of FIJA’s mission, strategy, campaigns, and educational resources, and have a good sense of how our web presence contributes to our mission. Excellent use of the English language is required as the web manager will be updating text on our website, developing graphics which incorporate text, and so on. It is also critical that the web manager be knowledgeable in Internet security and be proactive in securing the website and backing it up regularly.

This position is offered on contract. We expect that it will require part-time work on an ongoing basis. The web manager need not be co-located with the FIJA office; however, it is essential that this individual have regular and timely contact with FIJA management in order to ensure that time-sensitive issues such as security matters, press releases, and so on are addressed appropriately.

About the Fully Informed Jury Association and American Jury Institute
The Fully Informed Jury Association is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational outreach organization headquartered in Helena, Montana with activists across the country. The American Jury Institute is the publishing branch through which FIJA publishes educational material in support of its mission.

FIJA focuses on issues involving the role of the jury in our justice system and the preservation of the full function of the jury as the final arbiter in our courts of law. FIJA’s mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant. FIJA encourages all jurors to consult their consciences when deliberating over a case, and to refuse to exercise their lawful authority to enforce any law that violates the human rights of the defendant.

FIJA conducts its campaign solely through educational outreach programs and materials, and works to achieve its goals through means appropriate to its 501(c)(3) status. It does not advocate violence or willful disobedience to the law, and does not associate itself with any anti-government movement or organization.

Goals
FIJA’s website should be a hub for juror outreach activism and organizing as well as the premier online source for information regarding jurors’ rights and responsibilities. It should be an inviting, engaging, professional, credible, and informative site where anyone can quickly learn the basics of jurors’ rights and take away enough information to feel confident in exercising them when seated on a jury. It should prominently present information on FIJA’s current campaigns, as well as encourage feedback and interaction among activists, to encourage volunteers to become involved and stay engaged in our educational outreach work. Customers and donors should be able to make purchases or to contribute easily through the website by their preferred method. Members of the media should find it easy to access FIJA’s press releases and to contact us for more information, to schedule interviews, and so on.

The Freedom Law companion website should be an easy to use hub for self-help legal information, which is particularly useful to pro se defendants or plaintiffs and other lay persons actively participating in the legal process. It should be organized in an intuitive manner that allows users to find pertinent information quickly. This information should include not only links to other websites, but the original content from the archived Freedom Law website linked from the current site.

Audience
We are targeting the following types of visitors to our website:
• Individuals seeking accurate information about jurors’ traditional legal authority
• Volunteers who wish to get involved in educational outreach
• Groups looking for speakers to inform their members about jurors’ rights and responsibilities
• Media looking for information or experts to comment knowledgeably about jury-related issues
• Donors who wish to contribute financially to FIJA’s educational mission

Site Structure and Content
All of the current content of our existing sites should be maintained through any website update, unless otherwise noted by FIJA management. The organization of information will need to be restructured in order to make it easy to use for all target audiences. We are open to categorizing information in whatever way makes sense to the site visitor, and are looking for guidance on this issue from our web manager.

Currently the FIJA website is based on WordPress. This does not necessarily need to be carried forward; however, any new website platform must continuously accessible to and useable by FIJA staff who actively participate in adding and updating content.

Some needs we have already identified for the FIJA.org website include (but are not limited to):

1. To consolidate our News page with our home page to provide a more dynamic front-page experience for our visitors, with attractive, inviting, prominent, current content on the home page.

2. To optimize our website structure and content for improved ranking with popular search engines.

3. To make as much of our content as possible more accessible by offering it in the form of attractive, searchable web pages and not as downloadable files only (.pdf, .doc, .txt, etc.).

4. To improve our Search feature such that people can quickly and easily find material relevant to their search terms.

5. To update and integrate our financial transactions (online media catalog and donations) into a single system that allows users to pay by their preferred method as simply as possible.

6. To update how we accept online donations to give donors more options including choosing a custom donation amount, signing up to make recurring donations online, opting to make a donation in someone’s honor, and so on.

7. To integrate into our Media Catalog a way to offer electronic products such as e-books for purchase.

8. To offer periodic e-mail updates directing readers’ attention to current issues and campaigns.

9. To add online forms allowing site users to request more information, to fill out a State Contact data sheet, electronically submit a request to borrow a banner through our banner loan program, and more.

This list is not inclusive of all the improvements we wish to see. The web manager will review our websites as well as other websites, make recommendations for improvements and how to integrate new online tools and technology into our websites, and implement such changes as approved by FIJA management.

Site Statistics
We would like to use Google Analytics or other appropriate tools as recommended by the web manager to track key metrics for our websites, social networks, etc. and use that information to help optimize our web presence. The web administrator should identify such metrics and regularly report these metrics to FIJA management and make recommendations for how we can use this information to improve our users’ website experience, to expand our online reach, and so on.

Graphic Design
The web manager should have a good sense of design and continuity and be able to develop original graphics for use on FIJA’s websites as needed. These include, but are not limited to, graphics educating viewers about the concepts FIJA teaches, promoting FIJA campaigns, advertising specials in our Media Catalog, and so on.

Design Look and Feel
The website design should be professional and credible yet creative, inviting, interactive, and engaging. It should make use of FIJA’s brand elements including logo, color, and font where appropriate.

Search Engine Optimization
The web manager must be familiar with standard search engine optimization tools for top search engines (such as Google Web Master Tools, etc.). The manager will periodically review our websites’ listings and rankings in top search engines for key search terms, propose changes to the website to optimize our sites’ rankings and appropriately represent FIJA in search engines, and implement such changes as agreed to by FIJA management.

Security
The website must be compliant with current security protocols and must be updated regularly to protect against any security breaches. The website manager will be responsible for identifying all security measures, discussing them with FIJA management, and implementing them as approved by FIJA management. The website manager is also expected, from time to time, to work with the security manager of the private server on which our websites are hosted to ensure we are in compliance with any standards for the private server. Backups of our websites will be regularly made by the website manager, who will also be responsible for quickly restoring our websites with the most recent backup in the event of a security breach.

Proposed Timeline
We would like to begin this project in June 2013. Our intention is to maintain the current FIJA website for public use with only minor updates during an initial design phase in which the web manager will build and test a new site in a separate test . Once the new website is fully tested and approved by FIJA management, it will replace the current website. This is an ongoing project requiring continuous management and improvement. Once the FIJA website redesign is complete and in public use, we expect to similarly redesign the Freedom Law website.

Selection Criteria
In selecting a vendor for this project, evaluation of candidates will include the following criteria:
• Experience building flexible websites, which can be easily modified by non-technical users
• Experience with creating sites that build communities and have interactive features (blogs, discussion forums, etc.)
• Experience working with nonprofit organizations and specific knowledge about and dedication to FIJA’s mission
• Solid information architecture skills for organizing content in ways that are intuitive to readers
• Knowledge of current security protocols and ability to implement them
• Demonstrated track record of professionalism, including professional use of written English
• Applicant takes a holistic approach to an organization’s web presence (e.g., insight into integrating social media platforms, campaign tracking mechanisms, etc.)
• Competitive pricing that allows us to put our limited donor funds to most effective use

To Submit a Proposal
Please submit a proposal in PDF, Word, or plain text format including the following information
• Your contact details
• Your background, qualifications, skills, past achievements and how they are relevant to this position
• An overview of the proposed project
• A diagram or outline showing the different pages of the site and proposed navigational structure
• A description of each main web page, how it fits in with the overall web site theme, and the project goal it addresses
• A development timeline including a description of each stage of the web project’s initial development, project milestones, the estimated completion date, and notes regarding client consultation and supply of information/feedback from the client
• At least three examples of websites that you have designed, three examples of graphics you have designed, a writing sample, and contact information for client references
• Detailed project cost information including both the initial design phase and the ongoing management phase

Submission Deadline
We would like to have all proposals by no later than 3 May 2013 so we can make a decision by 31 May 2013.

Contact Information
Please direct all responses to this RFP and/or any questions to:
Fully Informed Jury Association
aji@fija.org
P.O. Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604

Tags: AJI, FIJA, Fully Informed Jury Association, job opportunity, Jury Nullification, nullification, web manager