Newsletter

~Basil

***************************************************

This week the defense counsel for juror rights educator Keith Wood filed a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss charges against their client.

The defense contends the prosecutor misrepresented the First Amendment standard as well as the primary case that was cited in support of prosecution.

In fact, the prosecutor went so far as to falsely state that "there is no difference between the facts and the law" in the cited case as compared to the Wood case. Yet the defense notes several ways in which the law and the facts differ in these two cases including:

the definition of 'juror' in each of the laws (Michigan law does not define 'juror' to include prospective jurors),

where the educational activity took place (Wood was exercising his First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum),

the form of communication (Wood had no private communication with any juror about a matter pending before that juror),

and the time of the communication (no trial was in progress when Wood was sharing FIJA literature)

Moreover, the prosecutor admits that the "criminal statute itself does not provide a definition of the word "juror"," is not defined in Michigan criminal statutes. Instead, he simply invents his own definition of it which conveniently includes 'prospective' jurors.

Defense counsel argues that per legal precedent, when a term is not specifically defined by law, it is to be understood by its plain and ordinary meaning, which does not include prospective jurors:
"As discussed in our principal brief, "Juror" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as a "member of a jury" (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.). "Jury" is defined as a certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them." Id. (emphasis added). That is the common sense use of the word, and thus the one this Court must apply."

FIJA Advisory Board member Dr. Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D. notes the abusive and sweeping nature of such an overreaching definition. "Think about that idea that the word 'juror' includes 'prospective' jurors. Prospective jurors include nearly all citizens," Roots points out.

Keith Wood tells us that there is no specific timeframe as of yet when the judge will rule on motions. However much we anticipate that this harassment under color of law will be thrown out-and it would greatly surprise me if it is not-the fact is that simply having to defend himself from such bullying is an expensive prospect.

Wood has already spent $15,000 on bail on a credit card to get out of jail before Thanksgiving after he was subjected to a blatantly punitive $150,000 bond, and that was just the beginning of his legal expenses. You can help support Keith via a GoFundMe set up by his brother-in-law. (A donation via that link is not to FIJA, and we do not issue a tax receipt for it.)

FIJA's gross income for 2015 totaled less than $60,000, so funding defense in these kinds of cases is simply beyond our financial capacity. Yet it is critical to be able to respond aggressively to these attacks on our exercise of First Amendment rights in support of our the Sixth.

This year we are asking for your help to develop a
comprehensive response that will demonstrate to
courthouse officials that such bullying will only backfire
and create more fully informed jurors.

First, please help us recruit attorneys willing to provide pro bono legal assistance via our Volunteer Attorney Network. We are compiling a list of such professionals who can assist us in filing for injunctions against First Amendment violations, assist defendants who have been falsely arrested while doing FIJA outreach, and so on.

This will greatly improve FIJA's ability to turn what prosecutors and judges intend to be a fatal blow to jury nullification education into a huge opportunity to spread the message much further. By using such opportunities to amplify the message through media coverage nationwide, we can discourage future abuse by courthouse officials.

Second, start or participate in a long-term juror education campaign at a courthouse where juror rights activists have won the First Amendment argument. FIJA is committed to providing as many free brochures as we can to volunteers conducting a long-term juror rights education campaign in accordance with FIJA guidelines, especially at courthouses that have harassed volunteers and lost.

Currently, these include the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver, Colorado. I look forward to adding the Mecosta County Courthouse in Michigan very soon!

I am not talking about short-term outreach that only occurs for a few days here and there. We need ongoing general educational outreach at these and other courthouses. I recommend starting with two to four people doing an hour or two of outreach once a week. As your group grows, people can alternate weeks.

Activists in Denver have been covering the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse for many months now, and the area is being so saturated with FIJA literature that it is becoming difficult to seat a jury without fully informed jurors. This is exactly the sort of campaign that will not only discourage future bullying by courthouse officials, but will also create the mass of fully informed jurors needed to make it impossible to seat juries without conscientious individuals empowered to judge the law as well as the facts.

If you are interested in conducting such a campaign, please reply to this email and I will help you get started!

For Liberty, Justice, and Peace in Our Lifetimes,
Kirsten C. Tynan
FIJA long full color logo