From: Julian P Heicklen <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM
- Jury nullification is legal, but that jurors are not to be informed of this.
- It is permissible to distribute my literature in a public forum.
- The plaza in front of the courthouse is not a public forum.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (c.k.a. Stroock) is an American law firm based in New York City with approximately 350 lawyers in three offices, the other two being in Miami and Los Angeles. Stroock, founded in 1876, maintained an office in Boston from 1996 to 2000 and briefly maintained an office in Budapest as well.
Stroock was named "Law Firm of the Year" by Securitization News in 2005.
Joel Cohen, a lawyer at Strroock & Stroock and Katherine A. Helm have written an article about jury nullification
much of which attacks me as a person. Of more concern is their ignorance of the law. They state that: "It is a doctrine that encourages jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law given to jurors during trial." Actually jury nullification does not encourage jurors to decide cases irrespective of the law unless justice is not being served.
They also state "Runaway jury verdicts would amount to little more than a random 12-person vote, where each person could vote their conscience, their pocketbook, a flip of their coin, or what have you." This is a deliberate falsehood. Jury nullification only requires that the issue of justice be predominant. They do not seem to be equally concerned that a judge, prosecuting attorney, the President, or a police officer can dismiss for any reason whatsoever.
They further write: "But, for the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuting him, on a misdemeanor charge, for violating Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1504 ("Influencing Juror By Writing"), Heicklen was intentionally, and very directly, seeking to impede the legal process by stopping jurors in their tracks." This statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1) The statement in the code says: "influencing juror by writing or sending to him." I do not send stuff to jurors.
2) I do not stop jurors in their tracks. I do not even know who jurors are. I only distribute literature to people that approach me.
They go on to state: "The truth is: That's not the law. Our justice system is based on jurors following the law as instructed by judges. As the 2nd Circuit made exquisitely clear in U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997):" Actually the Constitutions of both New York and New Jersey require the jury to judge the law as well as the fact. Several U. S. Supreme Court decisions and opinions have upheld this view.
This article is interesting for several reasons. Much of it attacks me as a person, which is irrelevant. The authors are completely ignorant of the Constitutional requirements for the Jury. They incompletely quote a statement in a statute to alter its meaning. They are willing to permit me to discuss my ideas where no jurors are present, in what are often called free speech zones. That is a euphemism which means where no-one interested in the information will be present.
The article was written by a lawyer in the "Law Firm of the Year," a law firm with 350 lawyers and branches in several U. S. cities, presumably with the sanction of that firm. Is this the best that the legal profession can provide?
The Free Dictionary defines judiciary as "A system of courts of law for the administration of justice." Most lawyers and all judges consider the purpose of a judicial system is to uphold the law, when its real purpose is to deliver justice. Law is only the means to that end, not the end in itself.