BrianGarst.com

Jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict of acquittal, despite the fact that the defendant violated the law. It is an important, though controversial, tool for insure judicial fairness. When the state overreaches, or a law fails to account for certain circumstances, juries can provide through jury nullification an important last protection for those who acted morally and ethically, but still face jail time.

Naturally, the state resents such power. This is understandable, and anyone has the right to argue against the practice of jury nullification. As I said before, it is controversial. But some in government are taking their objections too far, and in fighting against jury nullification are blatantly violating the rights of its proponents. Take this outrageous case, where agents of the state are attempting to jail a 78-year-old man for exercising his free speech rights:

Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood…at courthouse entrances…and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience.

That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates the law against jury tampering…

…“This is classic political advocacy,” Christopher T. Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said referring to Mr. Heicklen’s pamphleteering. “Unless the government can show that he’s singling out jurors to influence a specific verdict, it’s squarely protected by the First Amendment, and they should dismiss the case.”

Welcome to the world where it is a crime merely to suggest that there be a moral check on the power of the state.

Hat-tip: Reason’s Hit & Run