Fully Informed Jury Association

Last updated
Fully Informed Jury Association
AbbreviationFIJA
Formation1989 [1]
Type Membership organization
PurposeJuror education [2]
Headquarters Helena, Montana
Region served
United States
Executive Director
Kirsten C. Tynan
Main organ
Board of Directors
Budget
$140,000 annually [1]
Staff
3 [3]
Website fija.org

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state of Montana as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. It works to educate citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA's stated aims are to educate the public, provide commentary on current jury-related cases, and assist defendants with jury authority strategies — including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman, and his friend Don Doig. [4] It was formed following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

Contents

In the U.S., every defendant in a criminal case has the right, under Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be tried by an impartial jury. If the defendant is acquitted, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from putting him or her on trial again. FIJA advises jurors to vote for acquittal if they disagree with the law – a concept known as jury nullification – even if they believe the defendant committed the crime for which he or she is charged.

Activism

FIJA has lobbied state legislatures to enact legislation that would explicitly elevate the jury's formerly unspoken power to nullify to an openly acknowledged right. On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about jury nullification. [5] FIJA has also proposed abolishing the juror's oath. [6] FIJA has also launched a "Challenge for Churches" program of jury seminars, focusing on "serving justice through conscience". [7] FIJA has also launched a "Lunch Break for Liberty" program to encourage people to use their lunch break to hand out FIJA pamphlets.[ dead link ] [8]

FIJA activists have demonstrated outside courthouses and handed out literature to potential jurors in hundreds of cases. [9] They have generally not been arrested for doing so. FIJA speculates that this may be because "prosecutors have reasoned (correctly) that if they arrest fully informed jury leafleters, the leaflets will have to be given to the leafleter's own jury as evidence". [10] FIJA and its activists have been involved in litigation over these matters. [11] Another argument is that since FIJA literature is generic, making no reference to any cases potential jurors may be called upon to serve on, its distribution is not jury tampering. [12]

In dismissing an activist's lawsuit for false arrest for disorderly conduct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated, "Although advocacy of jury nullification could no more be flatly forbidden than advocacy of Marxism, nudism, or Satanism, we cannot think of a more reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech than to forbid its advocacy in a courthouse." [13]

Members

Past members include Libertarian Party politician, Mike Fellows. [14] [15] A board member was Robert Anton Wilson. [16]

Opposition

Some prosecutors and law enforcement professionals are strongly opposed to the notion that juries can nullify undesirable laws. [17] In 2008, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, quit the organization, stating that it was "so centered on jury nullification that it was ignoring the numerous threats that exist to the jury as an institution," [18] as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of cases going to jury trial is continually shrinking. [19] Executive Director Iloilo M. Jones described his parting comments as sour grapes motivated by his disappointment at not being able to shift FIJA's focus toward preparing attorneys to pursue jury nullification. Conrad rebutted that the organization needed to teach the importance of the jury system as a whole, not merely the nullification doctrine. [20] FIJA has been condemned as a threat to the system of rule of law rather than rule of men. According to Erick J. Haynie, "it is highly questionable whether jurors should be instructed to 'make' the law when a legislative body has already done the job for them. Congress and the state legislatures have superior expertise, resources and perspective to make macro-social decisions, and much more time to reach a well-reasoned decision than does 'a group of twelve citizens of no particular distinction snatched away from their primary vocations' to spend a couple of days in court.'" [21]

Cases

Jerry Begly

In 2001, Jerry Begly was dismissed from the jury pool after a bailiff noticed he was passing out copies of the Citizens Rule Book , a jury rights publication. The bailiff confiscated the booklets from the recipients and Begly was charged with contempt of court. [22] The judge dropped the charges "in the interest of judicial economy". [23]

Frank W. Turney

In Turney v. State of Alaska, FIJA advocate Frank W. Turney was indicted by a grand jury for jury tampering and criminal trespass, and on interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska allowed the indictment to stand. While a felon in possession of a firearm case was underway, Turney allegedly told a juror, who was wearing a button identifying him as such, to call FIJA's telephone number and learn about his rights. According to court records:

During deliberations the next day, Juror Ellis told other jurors that he had called the number, and that he was changing his vote. He told them that "I can vote what I want." He also told them that they should call the number ... The jury announced the next morning that it could not reach a decision, and was excused. Jury Foreman Romersberger testified that two jurors had changed their votes to "not guilty" after speaking with Turney or calling the number, leaving the jury deadlocked at eight "guilty" votes to four "not guilty" votes. He testified that the jurors who had switched stated that "their conscience was greatly relieved, and they were going to vote their conscience". [24]

After the verdict, Turney called in to a radio talk show to express his opinion that Hall should not have been prosecuted for possessing a concealable firearm since Hall previously had been convicted only of a non-violent felony. Turney's writ of habeas corpus was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [25]

Julian Heicklen

Julian Heicklen has been arrested multiple times by U.S. Department of Homeland Security federal police officers while distributing FIJA literature at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 25, 2010, Julian Heicklen was arrested after refusing to stop handing out pamphlets at a U.S. District Courthouse in New York City, and was indicted for jury tampering. Because of previous failures to appear in court, he was remanded to Riker's Island until his June 8 arraignment. [26] His arrest gained national attention over the following year due to the First Amendment implications of arresting a citizen for handing out educational pamphlets about jury nullification to prospective jurors outside of a courthouse. [27]

Heicklen has been arrested or fined multiple times related to distributing pamphlets on nullificiation. Heicken wrote that during one arrest he chose to fall to the ground limp and silent; an ambulance was called and he signed his hospital release form as "John Galt". [28]

Another activist was arrested for filming on federal property without permission while recording Heicklen's November 9, 2009 arrest. [29] Fellow nullification activists held a protest in his defense. [30]

On April 19, 2012, District Court Judge Kimba Wood granted Heicklen's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as legally deficient. [31]

Douglas Bruce

In June 2000, Douglas Bruce was called to appear as a potential juror for a sexual assault trial in Colorado Springs, CO. During the jury selection process, Bruce distributed leaflets written by the Fully Informed Jury Association in support of jury nullification. After defense attorneys objected to Bruce's actions, the presiding judge dismissed Bruce and 50 other potential jurors who had received the fliers, resulting in a two-week delay for the trial. [32] [ circular reference ]

Other

A 26-year-old man was acquitted on obstruction of justice charges stemming from his distribution of FIJA literature at the Perry County, Pennsylvania courthouse in 1994. [33] In 1996, a 53-year-old man was arrested for passing out FIJA pamphlets to prospective jurors at the Clark County, Nevada courthouse. [34] In 1995, a 51-year-old mother was charged with jury tampering for papering the windshields of cars near the federal courthouse with FIJA literature when her son was on trial and facing a heavy mandatory minimum sentence for drug offenses. [35] In 2014, a candidate running for office in Greene County, Illinois was charged with jury tampering two weeks before his primary election for allegedly communicating with and providing a link to the FIJA website to another local office holder via a public Facebook post after that public figure posted that he had been summoned for jury duty. [36] [37]

Related Research Articles

Jury instructions, also known as charges or directions, are a set of legal guidelines given by a judge to a jury in a court of law. They are an important procedural step in a trial by jury, and as such are a cornerstone of criminal process in many common law countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government. By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil". Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. Hung juries usually result in the case being tried again.

Jury tampering is the crime of unduly attempting to influence the composition or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial. The means by which this crime could be perpetrated can include attempting to discredit potential jurors to ensure they will not be selected for duty. Once selected, jurors could be bribed or intimidated to act in a certain manner on duty. It could also involve making unauthorized contact with them for the purpose of introducing prohibited outside information and then arguing for a mistrial. In the United States, people have also been charged with jury tampering for handing out pamphlets and flyers indicating that jurors have certain rights and obligations, including an obligation to vote their conscience notwithstanding the instructions they are given by the judge.

Laura Jean Kriho was an American cannabis legalization advocate and was also known for her part in a jury nullification trial in the mid-1990s. Kriho was also involved in the Cannabis Therapy Institute and in the push for the adoption of Amendment 20 in the Colorado Constitution. She advocated against Colorado Amendment 64, however, which she viewed as not true legalization. She petitioned the state with her own cannabis legalization language but never went for ballot title/signature collection.

<i>Citizens Rule Book</i>

Citizens Rule Book is a handbook written to educate American citizens regarding their rights and responsibilities. It is a compilation of quotes from founders of the United States of America and select government documents, including information on the rights of a jury to "nullify bad law" and acquit people on trial. The author of the Rule Book says that jurors have the right to nullify a trial if the law is unconstitutional or is being used in an unconstitutional manner. Originally published anonymously, the Citizens Rule Book is now known to have been written by Charles R. Olsen, a World War II Marine veteran and printer from Boston. It is distributed by the Fully Informed Jury Association, among other groups.

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in capital cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

A juror's oath is used to swear in jurors at the beginning of jury selection or trial.

A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

<i>United States v. Thomas</i> (1997) American legal case

United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a juror could not be removed from a jury on the ground that the juror was acting in purposeful disregard of the court's instructions on the law, when the record evidence raises a possibility that the juror was simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants. The case had important implications for secrecy of the jury deliberation process outweighs the ability to dismiss a juror for nullification.

United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 was a 1972 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which the court ruled that members of the D.C. Nine, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2–1 vote:

The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a "necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience, and must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny.

Jury sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting of the jury by exposing them to outside influence or information that is not admissible in court. In such cases, jurors are usually housed at a hotel, where they are not allowed to read the newspaper, watch television, or access the Internet, and may have only limited contact with others, even each other.

Don Doig is the co-founder of the non-profit group Fully Informed Jury Association in Montana, which was set up to inform Americans about their rights as jurors as well as personal liberties. He was the national coordinator for the organization. He is associated with the Jefferson River Coalition. He is also a former Libertarian Party candidate. He also wrote He Who Pays the Piper: Federal Funding Of Research, and was an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Julian Phillip Heicklen was an American chemist and civil liberties activist.

United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1003, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case affirming a district court's refusal to permit defense counsel to argue for jury nullification.

References

  1. 1 2 "History - Fully Informed Jury Association". Archived from the original on 2010-02-11. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  2. ↑ "Purpose - Fully Informed Jury Association". Archived from the original on 2010-04-15. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  3. ↑ "Who We Are - Fully Informed Jury Association". Archived from the original on 2010-04-15. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  4. ↑ Scheflin, Alan W.; Van Dyke, Jon M. (1991), Merciful Juries: The Resilience of Jury Nullification, 48 Wash. & Lee L. Rev., p. 165
  5. ↑ Tuccille, J.D. (June 29, 2012), New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law, Reason Magazine
  6. ↑ Pepper, David A. (1999–2000), Nullifying History: Modern-Day Misuse of the Right to Decide the Law, vol. 50, Case W. Res. L. Rev., p. 599
  7. ↑ "Now Available: Challenge for Churches: Serving Justice Through Conscience - Fully Informed Jury Association". Archived from the original on 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
  8. ↑ "Freedom Friday: Lunch Break for Liberty Online — Fully Informed Jury Association". Archived from the original on 2012-03-09. Retrieved 2010-07-19.
  9. ↑ Rodgers, Frederic B. (1996), "The Jury in Revolt? A 'Heads Up' on the Fully Informed Jury Association Coming Soon to a Courthouse in Your Area", Judges J., vol. 35, pp. 10–12
  10. ↑ "If You are Facing Charges" Archived 2010-08-20 at the Wayback Machine , Fija.org
  11. ↑ Nowak, John E. (2000–2001), Jury Trials and First Amendment Values in Cyber World, 34 U. Rich. L. Rev., p. 1213
  12. ↑ Black, Robert C. (1997–1998), FIJA: Monkeywrenching the Justice System, 66 UMKC L. Rev., p. 11
  13. ↑ Braun v. Baldwin, 346F.3d761 (7th Cir.October 10, 2003).
  14. ↑ Zinke, Lewis have final debate Charles S. Johnson, The Montana Standard; October 21, 2014
  15. ↑ Missoulian October 1, 2014 U.S. House candidate Fellows seeks to balance budget, cut debt, protect gun rights By Charles S. Johnson
  16. ↑ Interview of Robert Anton Wilson, (conducted August 1997) Paradigm Shift, Vol. 1 No. 1 (July 1998). Retrieved January 11, 2007.
  17. ↑ Hannaford-Agor, Paula L.; Hans, Valerie P. (2003), Nullification at Work – A Glimpse from the National Center for State Courts Study of Hung Juries, vol. 78, Chi.-Kent L. Rev., p. 1249
  18. ↑ Conrad, Clay (July 20, 2008), Re: apology
  19. ↑ Conrad, Clay (Jan 16, 2006), Re: FIJA Does FIJA Still Exist?
  20. ↑ Iloilo Jones (15 Jan 2006), Re: FIJA Does Fija Still Exist
  21. ↑ Erick J. Haynie (Autumn 1997), Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The "Fully Informed" Jury Movement and Its Implications, vol. 88, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973–), pp. 343–379
  22. ↑ Rick Carroll (March 9, 2001), Potential juror booted for handing out flyers, Aspen Daily News
  23. ↑ Rick Carroll (March 14, 2001), Judge drops charges in jury leaflet case, Aspen Daily News
  24. ↑ Turney v. State,936P 2d533(4/4/97).
  25. ↑ Turney v. Pugh, 400F3d1197 (9th Cir.March 15, 2005).
  26. ↑ "Jailed Activist Info » Julian Heicklen". Archived from the original on 2010-05-31. Retrieved 2010-06-08.
  27. ↑ Weiser, Benjamin (November 27, 2011). "Brief Details Jury Nullification Case Against Julian Heicklen". The New York Times.
  28. ↑ Heicklen, Julian (Autumn 2009), FIJA Demonstrations in New York (PDF), American Juror, archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-20, retrieved 2013-06-22
  29. ↑ "New York State News on the Net!". Archived from the original on 2011-07-23. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  30. ↑ "Group Protests Arrest of Activist - News Story - WFMZ Allentown". Archived from the original on 2010-06-07. Retrieved 2010-06-08.
  31. ↑ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. - JULIAN HEICKLEN
  32. ↑ Douglas Bruce#Activism in Colorado Springs
  33. ↑ Appeal Reverses T-shirt Conviction, Harrisburg Patriot & Evening News, May 2, 1996, pp. B2
  34. ↑ Carri Geer (June 7, 1996), LV Man Jailed for Pamphlets, Las Vegas Rev. J., pp. 2B
  35. ↑ William P. Cheshire (August 17, 1995), Nevada Florist Charged with "Felonious" Handbill Distribution, Arizona Republic, pp. B4
  36. ↑ "Jury Nullification Comments on Facebook Prompt Jury Tampering Charge". Archived from the original on 2014-04-19. Retrieved 2014-04-17.
  37. ↑ "Are Jury Tampering Charges in Lamb Case Politically Motivated?". Archived from the original on 2014-04-19. Retrieved 2014-04-17.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.