Comments on: Neo-Nazi’s Conviction for Threatening Juror is Reinstated

By: Erika

Erika — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:24:17 +0000

Reynardine is right about witness and juror intimidation laws. If there is anything which can construed as possibly intimidating witnesses or jurors a person can be at risk of being jailed. It goes to the very heart of the legal system.

There are some First Amendment issues which did surface some with the “Stop Snitching” movement. Wear a “Stop Snitching” T-shirt on the street and you are fine -show up at the court house wearing a “Stop Snitching” t-shirt* and you have a problem. Anything which can be seen as a particular threat towards a particular juror or a particular witness is a problem. A general statement that people should not cooperate with the police or to stop snitching is protected under the First Amendment.

Posting information about a particular juror gets you very quickly outside of First Amendment protected territory and into threatening the intregrity of a trial territory – that gets you convicted.

* before you question whether anyone would possibly be this stupid to do this, the answer is yes they are. i’ve actually seen people facing drug charges show up in court wearing “Scarface” t-shirts. i’m sure it gives them a good story to tell their cellmate.

By: CM

CM — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:45:23 +0000

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

Thus, according to tradition, did Henry II bring about the murder of Thomas Becket, and also evade responsibility for the murder, through a careful choice of weasel-words. Back then, self-justification was an art; today, it’s a science.

By: Reynardine

Reynardine — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:35:17 +0000

Where it comes to public figures, merely saying that someone should be shot and sold for manure is considered an expression of political opinion, and protected as such, unless there is strong evidence of design or specific instigation (Watt v. U.S.). Jurors are quite another matter, as are witnesses, since the mere threat can influence verdicts/testimony, not only in that case, but in future cases, thus compromising judicial process. Both the US Code and every state I know of can lawfully treat such threats as crimes, usually felonies. Threats against private citizens cover a whole spectrum of criminal and tort law, which can’t be covered here. Just don’t threaten violence against postal workers or grim old bats like me. That’s trouble.

By: Aron

Aron — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57:16 +0000

Somewhere out in the distance, beyond howling winds and rain of Hurricane Samdy Malloy (no offense, Sam. Ha!), I can hear the sound of sad trombones…

By: Sam Molloy

Sam Molloy — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:21:40 +0000

Saying someone “should be assassinated” may not be illegal. This is probably a good thing, as laws that seem to make perfect sense in one context are inevitably misused eventually. Publishing the names and addresses of jurors is, I believe, a specific crime, as it is a very real threat to our entire legal system.