Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Will Hutaree Hysteria Be Jury Nullified?

Remember the Hutaree Hysteria, which I also mentioned here and here?  I read today, in an AP wire piece titled Militia trial starts in Michigan with jury picks, that, well, the headline is self-explanatory, though it has taken two (2) years to get to this point.

As I read through the article, my attention was caught by the following information related regarding some of the statements uttered by the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts.

The judge promised extraordinary secrecy to prospective jurors. They are referred to only by a number in court, and only defense attorneys know any personal information about them, not the defendants.

Roberts told jury candidates she wanted to get a sense of their “common sense. It might be one of the most important tools you have.” (bold by ed.)

My hope would be that the jury candidates do exercise that very important tool of their individual common sense also, in such a manner that brings to America’s attention the validity of jury nullification, as is currently happening in another federal FBI case known as the “African Sting” which Claire Wolfe brings to readers’ attention in a post titled The silence of the non-consenting, wherein we learn the following regarding the jurors involved in that trial.

As noted above, a number of jurors were troubled by the nature of the FBI sting operation. Specifically, some seemed unwilling to convict on the basis of vague language (e.g., “commission” instead of “bribe”) and where the defendants had not sought out the deal. These jurors were largely not participatory in the deliberations and when specifically called upon for their views would typically voice agreement with views expressed by some other juror voting “Not Guilty.” But enough small comments through the course of deliberations lead me to believe that their underlying view was that the defendants had acted in good faith and the FBI/DOJ in bad faith. Along the same lines, more than one juror voiced concern that it would be unjust for the defendants in this case to be convicted when the government relied so heavily on Mr. Bistrong [an informant/instigator of the sting] who freely admitted on the stand more illegal acts than the entire group of defendants was accused of, yet was able to plead to only one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

That would be, as Claire notes, “jury nullification in brilliant action.”

Posted by John Venlet on 02/07 at 03:55 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages