On April 29, 2011, the Associated Press (AP) carried a story headlined Rammell trial delayed pending new investigation. According to the story, the defendant scheduled to go on trial for a misdemeanor fish and game violation was handing out leaflets on the courthouse steps prior to the commencement of his trial. Defendant Rammell allegedly gave prospective jurors in his trial a leaflet containing “…information pulled from a website operated by the Fully Informed Jury Association.” The exact contents of the leaflet were not reported in the AP story. The story also states, ” ‘Handing out (fliers to jurors) is potentially a crime, but we will treat that like any other case,’ Pickett told the Post-Register. ” (The story does not further identify who “Pickett” is, but Bruce Pickett is the name of the Bonneville County Prosecuting Attorney.)
What do you think? Was the defendant exercising a free speech right or trying to corruptly influence his jury?
What, if anything, is missing from the news story that would have helped you form a better informed opinion?
What, if anything, was included in the story that could be considered biased reporting?
Regardless of the answer to your posed questions, what a total and complete failure of judgement. Risking a felony for what would most likely be a slap on the wrist, at most, for a misdemeanor case is just plain crazy.
FWIW, if it were up to me, reliance on a website for highly-questionable legal interpretations would be made a felony too. Or at least aggravating circumstances for enhanced sentencing.
Comment by Terry Harris — April 30, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
Terry,
I agree — bad judgment. Even if the leaflet didn’t contain any information specific to his own case and even if he was passing it out to everyone and not singling out prospective jurors, doing anything that could be construed as trying to influence the court, jurors, witnesses, etc. is really not smart.
If there was anything specific to his case in the leaflet, if the leaflet makes it appear he was trying to provide prospective jurors with evidence the court might not have admitted, then he has supported any allegation of trying to corruptly influence.
He is representing himself, so he might have better spent his time preparing for his trial.
Comment by Bill — April 30, 2011 @ 4:46 pm