7 felonies for passing out jury nullification fliers

[Devils Advocate]

Source

Quote:Denver prosecutors have charged a man with seven counts of jury tampering after they say he tried to influence jurors by passing out literature on jury nullification on Monday.

Mark Iannicelli, 56, set up a small booth with a sign that said "Juror Info" in front of the city's Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse courthouse, prosecutors say.

The Denver District Attorney's Office says Iannicelli provided jury nullification flyers to jury pool members.

Jury nullification is when jurors believe a defendant is guilty of the charges but reject the law and return a not guilty verdict.

"Iannicelli has been released from custody on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond," the office said in a Thursday news release.

Jury nullification is a corner stone of U.S. law liberty, of which many Americans have no idea. It's a sad state when jurors are ignorant, to the preference of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys.

[mallorian69]

I don't see how providing info that the court should be providing but often doesn't could be considered "tampering"

[*michaelsean*]

He's trying to influence jurors. Seems pretty plain to me.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: I don't see how providing info that the court should be providing but often doesn't could be considered "tampering"

What info should the court be providing?  The jury is supposed to follow the law. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 09:06 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Source





Jury nullification is a corner stone of U.S. law liberty, of which many Americans have no idea. It's a sad state when jurors are ignorant, to the preference of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.  While the headline is designed to capture your attention and inflame the reality is that this guy will in no way be convicted of seven felonies.  If he has no record he's very likely to plead to a misdemeanor.  In any event this is tampering.

[mallorian69]

(08-06-2015, 10:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What info should the court be providing?  The jury is supposed to follow the law. 

The fact that nullification is an option. I've done jury duty before and not once was this ever brought to our attention.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 11:25 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: The fact that nullification is an option. I've done jury duty before and not once was this ever brought to our attention.

Because it's not an option as far as the court is concerned.  A jury can do it, and in a not guilty verdict, there is nothing the court can do about it, but the jury is specifically told that they are to follow the law.  

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 10:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What info should the court be providing?  The jury is supposed to follow the law. 

The jury has the right to disagree with the law. Anyone instructing them to 'follow the law' has no business being a position to say as much. The problem with telling 99% of the people to 'follow the law' is the fact they don't know/understand the law. The courts count on this.  

[*PhilHos*]

Sooooooooooooo, if a jury decides on nullifcation, how do they notify the judge?

"Have you reached a verdict?"
"We have."
"How do you find?"
"We find the defendant guilty, but we're nullifying the charges."

How funny would it be if this guy went to trial and his jury decided on nullification?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 11:34 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: The jury has the right to disagree with the law. Anyone instructing them to 'follow the law' has no business being a position to say as much. The problem with telling 99% of the people to 'follow the law' is the fact they don't know/understand the law. The courts count on this.  

I don't know where you get this from. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-06-2015, 11:34 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: The jury has the right to disagree with the law. Anyone instructing them to 'follow the law' has no business being a position to say as much. The problem with telling 99% of the people to 'follow the law' is the fact they don't know/understand the law. The courts count on this.  

But jury nullification, unless I'm mistaken, IS legal. Meaning it's "the law", too. So, by saying they SHOULDN'T follow the law, you're saying you're against jury nullification, but the rest of your posts make it sound like  you're in favor of it.  So which is it?

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 11:48 AM)PhilHos Wrote: But jury nullification, unless I'm mistaken, IS legal. Meaning it's "the law", too. So, by saying they SHOULDN'T follow the law, you're saying you're against jury nullification, but the rest of your posts make it sound like  you're in favor of it.  So which is it?

I didn't write they shouldn't follow the law. I wrote they have the option of disagreeing with it. I'm in favor of nullification. It's fundamental aspect of the very few powers an individual has in this country. Nullification wields as much power as a vote for office. 

[Devils Advocate]

Link to the stink

Quote:A Denver man has been charged with multiple felonies after he was caught distributing fliers to educate potential jurors about the practice of “jury nullification.”

The Denver Post reported that 56-year-old Mark Iannicelli set up a small booth with a sign reading “Juror Info” outside the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver last week. The Denver District Attorney’s Office charged Iannicelli with seven counts of jury tampering after members of the jury pool were found to be in possession of fliers describing jury nullification.


Jury nullification allows juries to acquit a defendant who they may believe is guilty if they also believe that the law is unjust. The practice has been used by juries in the United States since the 1800s to nullify anti-free speech laws and laws punishing northerners for helping runaway slaves. It has most recently been used in drug cases when juries have viewed laws as discriminatory.

A copy of the criminal complaint obtained by Kirsten Tynan of the Fully Informed Jury Association says that Iannicelli “unlawfully and feloniously attempted directly and indirectly to communicate with” seven jurors.

A probable cause statement added that Iannicelli was accused of “handing out information to potential jurors.”

Tynan pointed out that the complaint “does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli of advocating for or against any case in progress” and “it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli even of targeting individuals for sharing information with them.”

“The charges don’t discuss specifically what Mr. Iannicelli is accused of doing, but rather seem to regurgitate the language of the statute which he is accused of violating (C.R.S. 18-8-609 for all counts) and then claim that he violated it,” Tynan wrote.

“I see nothing in the Statement of Probable Cause substantiating these accusations.” Tynan continued. “The charges allege that Mr. Iannicelli acted ‘with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, and action in a case’, but nowhere in the Statement of Probable Cause do I see anything that indicates such.”

“Nothing I have heard from any of the local people who saw the arrest and/or know Mr. Iannicelli indicates that he was doing anything other than fully informing people about all the options jurors have.”

Iannicelli was released on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond. His next court date is scheduled for Aug. 11.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-06-2015, 11:36 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Sooooooooooooo, if a jury decides on nullifcation, how do they notify the judge?

"Have you reached a verdict?"
"We have."
"How do you find?"
"We find the defendant guilty, but we're nullifying the charges."

How funny would it be if this guy went to trial and his jury decided on nullification?

That would be the best way to spread the msg about nullification.  That jury sure as hell would know what it is.

[Devils Advocate]

As a matter of fairness, nullification presents dangers. It was used many times, it seems, as a means to acquit white people of crimes against blacks, during the Jim Crow era. I'm sure there are more examples but this one will do.

I'm not implying its a double edged sword, however nullification shouldn't be applied loosely in any case. Still, I maintain its use is on par with a single vote for office and should be common knowledge amongst the people. I can see why the legal system wouldn't want it to be, but I can't excuse it.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 01:38 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: As a matter of fairness, nullification presents dangers. It was used many times, it seems, as a means to acquit white people of crimes against blacks, during the Jim Crow era. I'm sure there are more examples but this one will do.

I'm not implying its a double edged sword, however nullification shouldn't be applied loosely in any case. Still, I maintain its use is on par with a single vote for office and should be common knowledge amongst the people. I can see why the legal system wouldn't want it to be, but I can't excuse it.

It seems you think there is some law that grants jury nullification.  It just exists due to our double jeopardy laws, and that of course we don't hold jurors somehow responsible for their decision nor do we know, unless they tell us, what factors they used to decide the verdict.  

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 01:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems you think there is some law that grants jury nullification.  It just exists due to our double jeopardy laws, and that of course we don't hold jurors somehow responsible for their decision nor do we know, unless they tell us, what factors they used to decide the verdict.  

And you seem to think it is illegal and unfounded in law when it is, in fact legal and goes all the way back to the 17th century and possibly further. 

I won't debate it's implications in double jeopardy and jurors privacy, but let's not pretend that's it's only usefulness. A jury may use it when it feels laws are unjust. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 02:57 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: And you seem to think it is illegal and unfounded in law when it is, in fact legal and goes all the way back to the 17th century and possibly further. 

I won't debate it's implications in double jeopardy and jurors privacy, but let's not pretend that's it's only usefulness. A jury may use it when it feels laws are unjust. 

It does not exist in our law.  It's something that is possible because of our other laws.  To suggest that a judge should instruct on something that is not in our law makes no sense.  

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 03:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It does not exist in our law.  It's something that is possible because of our other laws.  To suggest that a judge should instruct on something that is not in our law makes no sense.  

I can agree with that. I'd like retract my earlier statement alluding to that. Still, a jury should be informed of the ability whether it's from the defense or elsewhere. In fact they were, up until the 1800's. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2015, 04:02 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I can agree with that. I'd like retract my earlier statement alluding to that. Still, a jury should be informed of the ability whether it's from the defense or elsewhere. In fact they were up until the 1800's. 

What the hell am I supposed to do with that?