The Michigan Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the sentence of a former pastor who was convicted by a lower court of jury tampering for handing out "informational pamphlets" about the rights of jurors.
Keith Wood had upset local judicial officials by handing out the pamphlets on the power jurors have to vote their conscience in accordance with the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions guide.
He was ordered from the public sidewalk in front of the courthouse in Big Rapids, Michigan, where he was handing out the information to people entering, according to the legal team at the Kallman Legal Group, which represented him.
"Mr. Wood was charged with tampering with a jury that did not exist. On the day in question, Mr. Wood had no interaction with a single person who was a 'juror in any case,'" the legal team argued.
The state's highest court said it agreed with Wood's explanation that a person is not a juror until he or she actually participates in a case, such as taking the initial oath for jury questioning of potential jurors.
The court ruled: "We hold that the individuals here who were merely summoned for jury duty had not yet participated in a case and were not jurors under [the statute]. . . . [T]he Legislature could have chosen a narrower definition of 'juror' because of possible First Amendment concerns – such as those raised by [Mr. Wood] here . . . In sum, under [the statute], an individual summoned for jury duty is not a juror when he or she merely shows up at the courthouse for jury duty."
Wood's lawyers had argued: "Citizens hold many differing political views, and they often hold them passionately. They may express those views even in ways that offend government officials. The price for our freedom is that we might be subjected to views that offend us. Freedom of speech helps inform jurors of their right to vote their conscience and no anarchy traceable to this fundamental principle results from its exercise. Our jury system is predicated upon responsible citizens voting their conscience on a jury."
The ruling exempts Wood from serving the remaining 15 days in jail and paying the fine issued by the lower court.
"My family and I are extremely excited and pleased there is still justice in our country today. I look forward to moving on with my life without a criminal record for my exercise of free speech. I am thankful for all the prayers and encouragement from our friends and supporters over the past five years," Wood said in a statement released by his lawyer, David A. Kallman.
Kallman said: "We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized the injustice of Mr. Wood’s criminal conviction under the plain language of the jury tampering statute. Mr. Wood believes that freedom of speech leads to more justice and more freedom, not less, and that citizens are competent to shape their own opinions without the “protection” of government officials."
Wood had earned the support of groups as diverse as the libertarian Cato Institute and the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union.
The case began when he handed out brochures in front of the Mecosta County courthouse in November 2015. He was charged with a misdemeanor and a felony. While the felony count was dismissed, he was convicted on the misdemeanor.
The Cato Institute stated: "Mr. Wood was arrested and convicted for engaging in classic political advocacy (peacefully distributing pamphlets) in the quintessential public forum (the sidewalk in front of a courthouse) on a matter of public concern more ancient than Magna Carta, and at the heart of Anglo-Saxon law (the rights, duties, and independence of citizen jurors). One can well imagine why an English monarch might wish to suppress efforts to inform potential jurors of their power to resist tyranny by refusing to convict fellow citizens who had incurred the sovereign's enmity; what is – or should be – more surprising is American courts American sovereigns to suppress such speech on American soil."
The ACLU sounded a similar concern in a brief: "If the government has discretion to punish speech it doesn't like, none of us truly enjoys the freedom of speech."
The confrontation developed when Magistrate Thomas Lyons "went outside to investigate and speak with Mr. Wood."
"Lyons confronted Mr. Wood and instructed him that he should not share the information in the pamphlet on a public sidewalk. Mecosta County District Court Judge Peter Jaklevic also took issue with Mr. Wood sharing information outside the courthouse and apparently discussed with Deputy Jeff Roberts and Prosecutor Brian Thiede how to stop Mr. Wood. Judge Jaklevic ordered Deputy Roberts to go outside and bring Mr. Wood into the courthouse to speak with him. Deputy Roberts also spoke with DNR Detective Janet Erlandson and Prosecutor Thiede about Mr. Wood’s expressive activities. Prosecutor Thiede directed Detective Erlandson and Deputy Roberts to bring Mr. Wood inside the courthouse to speak with Judge Jaklevic. Detective Erlandson and Deputy Roberts confronted Mr. Wood outside on the public sidewalk and demanded to see his papers. After being coerced by a threat of arrest by Deputy Roberts, Mr. Wood was escorted into the courthouse."
Inside the courthouse, Jaklevic, Thiede and Assistant Prosecutor Nathan Hull confronted Wood, and Jaklevic ordered him arrested for jury tampering.
A report on jury nullification by the University of Missouri-Kansas City explains it occurs "when a jury returns a verdict of 'Not Guilty' despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged."
"The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding."
Such decisions were common during the era of slavery in the United States, when juries acquitted activists who helped runaway slaves.
"Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question," the report said. "Once a jury returns a verdict of 'Not Guilty,' that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the 'double jeopardy' clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge."
Early in the nation's history, "judges often informed jurors of their nullification right."
"For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors, 'You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law].' In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed."
The brochures Wood handed out were from the Fully Information Jury Association.
The post State Supremes: Former pastor allowed to hand out information on juries appeared first on WND.
