Comments on: First Amendment roundup

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:35:41 +0000

In reply to Timothy E. Harris. I think there's a difference between opposing a jury instruction--which I think is eminently reasonable and using the criminal law to stop a citizen from informing other citizens of their powers.

By: Timothy E. Harris

Timothy E. Harris — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 14:38:01 +0000

In reply to Canvasback.

You would be surprised. This sort of prosecution happens over & over again across many jurisdictions. Ever since Sparf v. United States (1895), judges have been able to prevent defense attorneys from bringing up the jury’s right of nullification, and many do.
http://fija.org/news/

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 20:22:53 +0000

The statute reads as if it would apply to a particular case, not the general interest information that Wood was passing out. Sounds like the DA’s office got mad at him for interfering with business as usual. No real lawyer would make such a twisted argument.

By: MattS

MattS — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:08:10 +0000

In reply to SPO.

Because the government has guns and the desire to use them.

You can meekly accept the abuse and maybe hope you can sue for damages later, but you probably can’t because Qualified Immunity.

Or, you can stick your head between your legs and say goodbye.

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:03:48 +0000

Re: Jury “tampering”–perhaps the prosecutors should be prosecuted and go to prison for this nonsense.

Why do we seem to think that people must simply meekly accept government abuse?