The NYT details a case where a man - an advocate of jury nullification- who has been standing outside a U.S. Courthouse has been informing potential jurors of the practice. Not surprisingly, prosecutors don;t like this and want to punish him for doing so. They accuse him of juror tampering. Lawyers for the man charged argue that what he is doing is protected by the First Amendment.
Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification. Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
This story hits a few points covered in 2301, if not the very concept of consent and how it plays itself out in the governing system. Remember that the jury that acquitted John Peter Zenger effectively nullified the libel laws that existed at that time. It's worth pointing out that he is handing out information created by an interest group called the Fully Informed Jury Association.
Based on what we've covered in class - is this protected speech? How might a court rule on this case?
