Billboard advocating jury nullification concerns D.C. prosecutors

[jct74]

Billboard advocating jury nullification concerns local prosecutors

By Keith L. Alexander
Published: October 29, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/24/Local/Images/JuryDuty31382625251.jpg


The illuminated billboard in the Judiciary Square Metro station near the F Street entrance was strategically placed.

Prospective jurors who take the subway to D.C. Superior Court and exit near the National Building Museum see these words: “Good jurors nullify bad laws” and “You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”

Since the billboard went up this month, District prosecutors have been worried that the message could sway their cases. In the past week alone, they have asked judges in three cases to ensure that jurors had neither seen nor been influenced by the billboard.

The billboard is part of a growing national campaign to encourage jurors who disagree with a law, or think a punishment is too harsh, to vote for acquittal. Kirsten Tynan of the Montana-based Fully Informed Jury Association, whose name and Web address is included on the billboard, said the nonprofit group generally challenges crimes it calls “victimless,” such as vandalism by graffiti or gun possession.

James Babb, a Philadelphia-based graphics artist who organized a fundraising campaign to put up the billboard, said he raised $3,000 in about a week through Facebook and other social-media sites. He said he is concerned about laws that he thinks are too restrictive.

“People are going to jail for weed,” Babb said. “Things are getting so weird. There needs to be this final safeguard to protect us from a tyrannical government.”

Babb’s group has added a similar message on two pillars in Archives station, another Metro stop near the courthouse. Both displays are scheduled to be up for about a month. Babb said he also plans to place signs in other cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles.

...

The billboard also comes as Adam Kokesh, a Fairfax County-based gun rights activist, is preparing to go to trial after posting an Independence Day video on YouTube of himself apparently loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza. He had been scheduled to go to trial Thursday, but the case was pushed back to at least Nov. 18.

...

Tynan said the Metro billboard was not directly aimed at the Kokesh, who pleaded not guilty to carrying a pistol without a license, but she said that his case was the kind her organization targeted. “It’s a victimless trial,” Tynan said.

...

read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/metro-billboard-advocating-jury-nullification-concerns-local-prosecutors/2013/10/29/fe53edbc-3da9-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html

[Barrex]

Agree with jury nullification BUT not that "vandalism by graffiti" is victimless crime.

Vandalism by graffiti destroys other peoples property.

[tod evans]

Good!

[dannno]

Vandalism by graffiti destroys other peoples property.

What if the property owner is ok with it? Do police ask the property owners if they are ok with it first, or do they just charge people?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

FIJA is such a great organization.

[pcosmar]

Vandalism by graffiti destroys other peoples property.

Not necessarily.
The property remains,, it is just redecorated.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/22/nyregion/EXHIBIT/EXHIBIT-articleLarge.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

If its private property its not a victimless crime. If its public property on the other hand, it is victimless, becaue public property doesn't really exist.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

FIJA is such a great organization.


+rep... yes they are.

Very few organizations are worthy of shoe leather donations. They are.

[ifthenwouldi]

Read the comments. The reporter is the one who made the leap that graffiti is a victimless crime, not the FIJA.

[pcosmar]

Read the comments. The reporter is the one who made the leap that graffiti is a victimless crime, not the FIJA.

And the whole point of the issue is,,
That the Jury would decide if it was a crime.

[dannno]

Read the comments. The reporter is the one who made the leap that graffiti is a victimless crime, not the FIJA.

Would probably have to contact Kirsten Tynan, but this could very well be the case.

[Barrex]

What if the property owner is ok with it? Do police ask the property owners if they are ok with it first, or do they just charge people?
Then it wouldnt be vandalism if it is ok with property owner.


Not necessarily.
The property remains,, it is just redecorated.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/22/nyregion/EXHIBIT/EXHIBIT-articleLarge.jpg
Can I redecorate your car and your body with graffiti?

Some grafitti are awesome. My would be ugly. Got no talent.

If its private property its not a victimless crime. If its public property on the other hand, it is victimless, becaue public property doesn't really exist.

In utopian society... In reality we pay for repainting.

[Occam's Banana]

Since the billboard went up this month, District prosecutors have been worried that the message could sway their cases. In the past week alone, they have asked judges in three cases to ensure that jurors had neither seen nor been influenced by the billboard.

Well, of course! Because after all, we can't allow people to think "outside the (jury) box" and have thoughts that have not been pre-approved for them by judges and prosecutors, now, can we?

I mean, actually letting people themselves decide what is or is not a crime would be, like, "anarchy" or something ...

[osan]

The great thing in this is that it requires only one to screw the prosecution's case into the mud.

If this perchance caught on, what would you be willing to bet that the rules for juries would suddenly become "outdated", necessitating they be changed fundamentally for the good of the nation?

[erowe1]

Agree with jury nullification BUT not that "vandalism by graffiti" is victimless crime.

Vandalism by graffiti destroys other peoples property.

I noticed that the article didn't give an actual quote from Tynan, quoting what, if anything, he actually said about vandalism.

[erowe1]

Here's FIJA's corrections to that article.
http://fija.org/2013/10/30/corrections-to-washington-post-article-on-dc-jury-nullification-ads/

The vandalism thing was about something done in chalk.

Notice all the things in the article where the author takes the liberty to tell you what FIJA's positions and strategies are without giving actual quotes.

[TaftFan]

Not necessarily.
The property remains,, it is just redecorated.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/22/nyregion/EXHIBIT/EXHIBIT-articleLarge.jpg

I have no sympathy for vandals, they are generally stupid people who think others care about their "expression". I'm more mentally stable myself so I don't have to express my weird-ass feelings.

[jct74]

James Babb on a local Fox station earlier today discussing the billboards


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XnVqSNV3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XnVqSNV3Aw

[pcosmar]

I have no sympathy for vandals, they are generally stupid people who think others care about their "expression". I'm more mentally stable myself so I don't have to express my weird-ass feelings.

The issue is NOT Vandalism.

The issue is Jury Nullification..

http://fija.org/2013/10/30/corrections-to-washington-post-article-on-dc-jury-nullification-ads/

By way of example to explain, I gave the recent case of Jeff Olson in San Diego just a few weeks ago. Mr. Olson was prosecuted on 13 charges of so-called “vandalism” for writing anti-Bank of America statements ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN CHALK, which obviously will rub off as people walk on it and will be gone completely the next time it rains. Note that not only does San Diego have at least one chalk art festival, but protestors outside Mr. Olson’s trial were allowed by police to chalk messages on the sidewalk in a box chalked out on the walk by the police themselves. This was clearly a case of selective prosecution for a so-called offense that is perfectly acceptable to the state when its message is not contrary to the state’s whims. Mr. Olson turned down plea deals offered by the prosecuting attorney, instead facing a potential 13 years in jail plus $13000 in fines for this entirely victimless exercise in free speech. His jury acquitted him on all counts. This is a FAR cry from Mr. Alexander’s implication that FIJA considers vandalism generally a victimless crime. I think most people can see that this is a very different situation from, say, spray painting on your neighbor’s car, which is clearly NOT a victimless crime.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://whatisthewhat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/17banksyes_468x6061.jpg

-t

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

This is a very good thread. And that was a great post pcosmar

[jct74]

Here's FIJA's corrections to that article.
http://fija.org/2013/10/30/corrections-to-washington-post-article-on-dc-jury-nullification-ads/

The vandalism thing was about something done in chalk.

Notice all the things in the article where the author takes the liberty to tell you what FIJA's positions and strategies are without giving actual quotes.

wow, that is really a despicable smear job by the WaPo author trying to portray people who advocate jury nullification as radicals that don't even think vandalism of other people's property should be a crime... I knew that had to be a bunch of BS when I first read it.

from the FIJA blog:


By way of example to explain, I gave the recent case of Jeff Olson in San Diego just a few weeks ago. Mr. Olson was prosecuted on 13 charges of so-called “vandalism” for writing anti-Bank of America statements ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN CHALK, which obviously will rub off as people walk on it and will be gone completely the next time it rains. Note that not only does San Diego have at least one chalk art festival, but protestors outside Mr. Olson’s trial were allowed by police to chalk messages on the sidewalk in a box chalked out on the walk by the police themselves. This was clearly a case of selective prosecution for a so-called offense that is perfectly acceptable to the state when its message is not contrary to the state’s whims. Mr. Olson turned down plea deals offered by the prosecuting attorney, instead facing a potential 13 years in jail plus $13000 in fines for this entirely victimless exercise in free speech. His jury acquitted him on all counts. This is a FAR cry from Mr. Alexander’s implication that FIJA considers vandalism generally a victimless crime. I think most people can see that this is a very different situation from, say, spray painting on your neighbor’s car, which is clearly NOT a victimless crime.

[Cleaner44]

Each one of us should do what we can to serve on juries. I welcome the opportunity.

[shane77m]

Since the billboard went up this month, District prosecutors have been worried that the message could sway their cases. In the past week alone, they have asked judges in three cases to ensure that jurors had neither seen nor been influenced by the billboard.

Sounds like DC needs a whole lot more billboards.

Then again though, I am pretty sure the prosecuters could find plenty of people like those in a Mark Dice interview video.