Elderly Gadfly Faces Prison for Handing Out Political Pamphlets

Julian P. Heicklen is a 78-year-old retired Pennsylvania State University chemistry professor with an unusual hobby: For years the ardent libertarian activist has regularly stood outside the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street to spread the word about jury nullification, a controversial concept that encourages jurors to disregard any law they disagree with. The government doesn't want you to know about it, and now federal prosecutors are making an example of Heicklen, who's been arrested many times for distributing his fliers about the issue.

Heicklen was arraigned last Friday on a charge of "jury tampering"; during the proceedings he was at turns combative and silent, and the Times reports that the judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. Heicklen calls the charges, which could result in six months in prison, a "tissue of lies," and he says he distributes the fliers to any passersby outside the court—with no way to tell if they are jurors or not. But he holds a sign saying "Jury Info," and acknowledges that sometimes people think it's official. Heicklen, who typically drops to the ground after being issued a citation and must be carried off the premises, was reportedly held without bail at Rikers Island last May due to bench warrants issued after he refused to attend court dates related to previous arrests at 500 Pearl Street.

The NYCLU's Christopher Dunn tells the Times, "This is classic political advocacy. Unless the government can show that he’s singling out jurors to influence a specific verdict, it’s squarely protected by the First Amendment, and they should dismiss the case." Unfortunately for Heicklen, he's not entitled to a jury trial, so his peers won't even have the opportunity to vote according to their consciences. The website Blog of Bile has been obsessively documenting Heicklen's numerous run-ins with the law outside the courts; here's a good one:

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on February 25, 2011 4:08 PM

Comments [rss]

Thebes

Uhm, Congress shall MAKE NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech or freedom of press.

I am sure that the bloody Red Coats didn't like the distribution of Common Sense either.

Besides, what the heck is the point of a jury system if the jury is not allowed to represent the conscience of We the People?

Perhaps we need a modern version of the Sons of Liberty?

Richard

To Julian, Bob and everyone else invovlved with this video.............Thank you for your testicles made of steel.
.
.
.
.

Reader11722

This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Books...

.

This is a symptom of the decline of America. Rights are no longer respected by the
institutions intended to respect them.

You get the government you deserve; sometimes the second is necessary for
removing the trash that others have left. Grow Jasmine.

fija.org

bile

Obsessive documentation because I became ensnared in Julian's outreach after being arrested for filming it which turned into a lawsuit against the DHS that was settled late last year in my favor. If they had just left him and I alone we probably never would have came back. But as they arrested him 11 times for handing out information packets he felt it had become a 1st Amendment issue and pushed it further.

PaulaNYC

Are you kidding me????

Baby Vance is TOTALLY out of control!!!

He had better hope that I am NEVER called for jury duty. I'll turn the damn thing around to investigat HIM.

C'mon, Baby Vance....what would you do with a runaway Grand Jury in New York County, Mr. Prosecutor???

Just so you all know: a Grand Jury, once empanelled, can investigate ANYTHING. And while New York County tries to keep a lid on grand jurors by telling them that they have to take direction and control from the DA (running questions through the DA, etc.), there is NOTHING in the law that requires it. Everything is done by the vote of the grand jurors.

An empanelled grand jury is the single most powerful investigative element on the planet. It can issue subpoenas, issue warrants, require testimony...ANYTHING. And it can compel performance with a contempt citation.

So, if you want to investigate 9/11, the Kennedy Assassination, or the operation of lttle runt DA who used Daddy's name to get himself an office, get on a Grand Jury and convince the others to vote with you to ignore the DA and do what you want!!!

TimeDown

As much as I hate Cy Vance, this is a federal case he has little control over it.

jaycjay

" The government doesn't want you to know about it"

That's an overly broad and unsupportable statement. "The government", really? The government doesn't have a position on it. It's not even addressed in the law.

The majority of prosecutors probably would prefer that jurors don't know about it, so that'd give you at least part of the executive branch of "the government." Some judges, though, do advise jurors of it, so clearly the judicial branch "the government" isn't totally guilty of your accusation – some of its members clearly do "want you to know about it." Legislative branch? Again, they don't really deal with it. I'd guess that at least some of those who might end up in court themselves might want jurors to know about it. And that would to for some of "the government"'s legislative branch members as well. And some from the judicial, I suppose.

"The government doesn't want you to know about it." Sheesh. Really, your conspiracy theories are more effective when you put them in the headline.

solly7

OK. To be more specific, I have yet to have a judge who allows for the jury to be informed of jury nullification. Nor have I ever dealt with a prosecutor that is in favor of the jury being informed.

I also come from a family of several lawyers and 2 former judges. They have never seen a judge or prosecutor predisposed to having informed juries.

In fact, I've observed several judges who have specifically stated that the ONLY things the jury may consider are those things which fall under his instructions.

TimeDown

Actually, saying "the government" is a correct term. 500 Pearl Street is in front of the federal courthouse and the article specifically mentions federal prosecutors. In a federal criminal case the prosecutors are called "the government" and in a NY state case the prosecutors are called "the people". And as for judges advising jurors of it, they always advise jurors against it. Traditionally, during jury selection a judge or the lawyers will ask "will you follow the law as the judge explains it to you even if it conflicts with your own views" or something similar to that. If the potential juror answers no he or she will be dismissed.

Lorili

I've been dismissed for jury duty twice by being honest about whether I would 'follow the law' or let my own views effect my judgment. Just be prepared to explain why in a reasonable, thoughtful manner. One judge even thanked me for my honesty.

matteus

That's a sweet law. I was in jury once and felt the judge informed us well about the process, but now I realize of course they're not going to tell you everything.. this could certainly throw a wrench in the process. Could a juror theoretically throw out all laws, in their mind to play vigilante? They could postpone a case indefinitely this way, but I think it's important. Besides voting, jury duty is the only other time I can think an individual gets a say in our government.

TheOtherBob

It's not a law, just a fact of life. Basically when a jury is asked to decide a criminal case, no one has the power to overturn a not guilty verdict or punish them in any way for getting it wrong. So if you know for dead certain that the man is guilty, but you just don't want to convict for some reason...well, you're the jury. Even though we might all know that you got it wrong...it's your decision, and no one else's.

To your question about throwing out all laws and playing vigilante, it doesn't work the same in the opposite direction. If the jury convicts despite clear innocence, that obviously makes the convicted person's life much more difficult...but there are ways to overturn the verdict. So while a jury *could* convict despite knowing that the man is innocent, it wouldn't have the finality of jury nullification. (It would also, I'd add, be fucking evil.)

matteus

I should clarify that 'vigilante' I pictured was more in the case of someone who doesn't think weed should be illegal, being a vigilante by refusing to convict somebody of a crime for illegal drug use for instance.

TheOtherBob

Oh, yeah -- you can totally do that.

ganghiscon

Well, no one DID use force on him. I think it's wrong that he was arrested, but the idiot antagonizing the cops and the cameraman yelling inane nonsense at everyone didn't help to further their cause at all.

Thebes

He was taken to a cage by men with clubs and guns. That is use of force, even if only implied.

If I had a gun on my person while kidnapping someone would you say I did not use violence?

bile

Force, as in he was taken against his will without first harming or agressing anyone. The cameramen are libertarians who believe in the non-aggression principle.

Either way, I generally agree that their attempted dialog doesn't seem to accomplish much though I understand the reasoning... to try to get them to really reconsider their actions.