STATES DISTRICT COURT OF INQUISITION
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America
Criminal Case # 10 Crim 1154
MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL
AND PROPERTY RETURN
Counsel Pro Se
Defendant was arrested several times at the U. S. Federal Courthouse in
Manhattan, NY; once, in Springfield, MA; and once, in Newark, NJ for
distributing literature on federal property without a permit in
violation of Department of Homeland Security Regulation 41 C. F. R.
All charges were dismissed by the federal attorneys in New York City.
In Newark, the U. S. Attorney has informed the judge that he will move
for dismissal at the May 26, 2011 hearing (Exhibit A).
In Springfield, MA, Defendant did not pay the fine of $100.00 nor
appear for his assigned court date. Originally this was set
improperly for August 17, 2010, in Boston, MA. The date was
changed to September 10, 2010, in Springfield, MA (Exhibit B).
On August 27, 2010, Defendant responded that this date was
unacceptable, because it was the Jewish holy day of Rosh Hashonah
The date was postponed about 1 month, but Defendant cannot locate the
notice .(He needs a bookkeeper).
In any event, Defendant did not respond nor appear.
No further action has been taken by either the court or the federal
attorney in Springfield, as far as Defendant knows. Defendant
considers this case to be moot.
The U. S. Attorney for New York filed a complaint of jury tampering
with the Grand Jury.
A Grand Jury hearing was held without Defendant’s
appearance or knowledge in conflict with 18 U. S. C. § 1504.
Influencing juror by writing.
The Grand Jury issued an indictment for jury tampering (Exhibit
The indictment shows that the U. S. Attorney lied to the Grand Jury as
“JULIAN HEICKLEN, the
defendant, attempted to influence the actions and decisions of a grand
and petit juror of a court of
the United states,...upon an issue and matter pending before such
juror, and before a jury of which he was a member, and pertaining to
his duties, by writing and sending to him a written communication
At the hearing of February 25, 2011, the Prosecutor was given 30
days to substantiate those claims.
As of April 26, 2011, the defense has received no written
statement substantiating any of those claims.
No tainted jurors, or any jurors at all, have been identified to
The only information received from the prosecution is three videos of
the incidents, in which no pedestrian making conversation with
Defendant is shown.
A fourth video was submitted with the indictment and police records of
arrests of Defendant.
HISTORY OF JURY NULLIFICATION
Jury nullification has a long and glorious history. It is
responsible for many of our freedoms.
The first case in which juries nullified a law was that of William Penn
and William Mead in England in 1670.
The jurors refused to convict the two Quaker activists who participated
in the unlawful assembly of publicly practicing the Quaker
That is how we obtained freedom of religion.
Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of
John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal.
Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his
This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited
criticism of the King or his appointed officers.
The jury found Zenger not guilty.
This is how we obtained freedom of the press.
Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777
and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that
"the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact."
In the 1850s, northern juries refused to return fugitive slaves, who
were the legal property of their owners.
Recent cases occurred in Washington, DC and LaSalle County Il
In Washington, D.C., a jury ignored a military veteran's obvious
violation of the city's draconian gun laws, setting him free with only
a slap on the wrist.
In LaSalle County, Illinois, a medical marijuana user found with 25
pounds of the plant didn't even get the slap; jurors chatted with him
after finding him not guilty.
More lengthy discussions of jury nullification can be found at:
Doug, Don and Rhodes, Stewart, “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking
it to Leviathoan” (2011)
Heicklen, Julian “The Non-Trials” Ch. VI, Ishi Press (2011)
Linder, Doug “Jury Nullification” (2001)
Kennedy, Randall “Racial Conduct by Jurors and Judges: The
Problem of the Tainted Conviction,” pp. 277-282, and “Black
Power in the Jury Box?” pp. 295-310, Race, Crime and the Law
Duane, James “Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional
Right” 22 Litigation No. 4, 6 (Summer 1996) (lead article).
Emal, Russ “Jury Nullification” (1996)
Green, Thomas Andrew. “Verdict According to Conscience:
Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial Jury” 1200-1800
(1985), Introduction, pp. xiii-xx, and especially Ch. 6 "The Principle
of Non-Coercion: The Contest over the Role of the Jury in the
Restoration," pp. 200-264.
Katz, Stanley Nider, (Ed.). "Introduction," pp. 1-33, in James
Alexander, “A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter
Zenger Printer of the New York Weekly Journal” (1972).
18 U. S. C. § 1504. Influencing juror by writing
Whoever attempts to influence the action
or decision of any grand or petit
juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter
pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member,
or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written
communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before
the grand jury.
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $1,000" in first par.
Last modified: April 13, 2006
PREVIOUS COURT OPINIONS
In Morissette v United States 342 US 246 (1952), the U. S. Supreme
Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The
"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of
the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to
judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had
they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
In U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972), the Court said:
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
Likewise, the U. S. Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana 391 US 145
(1968) implicitly endorsed the policies behind nullification when it
"If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to
the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he
was to have it."
PREVIOUS CASE FOR DISTRIBUTING PAMPHLETS
What follows is a portion of the brief filed by attorney Nancy Lord,
MD, in the case of U.S. v. Yvonne Regas in the U. S. District Court of
Northern Nevada. Regas was accused of jury tampering and related
charges for causing FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) "True or
False?" brochures to be placed on automobile windshields around the
federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada during the trial of her son and
ex-husband on drug charges.
The only previous case known to
Defendant of a distributor of Fully Informed Jury Information
literature being tried for jury tampering is that of United States v.
Yvonne Regas in the U. S. District Court of Northern Nevada in 1994.
This represents the first time federal criminal charges were filed
against a "fully informed jury" activist. The case ended in a
dismissal, offered Ms. Regas as a pre-trial diversion, within a few
days of this brief being filed. Since that time, a "hands-off" policy
seems to be in effect at most federal courthouses around the nation
when activists show up to distribute literature. Thus, even though this
case never went to trial, and therefore never gave rise to case law,
the brief itself appears to have had a positive effect upon judicial
appreciation of the First Amendment's protection of free political
Statement above (slightly modified) plus the the pertinent part of the
brief filed by Nancy Lord appears at:
Jury Power Page
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE
The Prosecution has not produced any tainted jurors, nor identified any
of them, nor produced any written messages sent to them, nor
substantiated any of the claims in the indictment.
Defendant distributed pamphlets, which is not listed as a criminal
offense in 18 U. S. C. § 1504. Influencing juror by writing.
Therefore Defendant moves to dismiss the case.
Furthermore Defendant moves that all of his confiscated property be
For all the arrests, his JURY INFO
sign and pamphlets were confiscated.
Additional property was seized in the arrest of May 25, 2010. The
confiscated property is listed in Exhibit E.
Exhibit A: Letter of April 1, 2011, of Assistant U. S. Attorney Jose R.
Almonte to Magistrate Judge Anthony R. Mautone indicating intention to
move for dismissal of criminal case in Newark, NJ on May 26, 2011.
Exhibit B: Letter from Thomas A. Sheerin, District Commander,
Prosecutor MA/40, postponing trail date and moving trial to
Exhibit C: Letter from Defendant to Clerk of Court, U. S. District
Court in Springfield, MA indicating that new trial date is
unsatisfactory because it is Rosh Hashonah, a Jewish holy day.
Exhibit D: Indictment.
Exhibit E: List of property seized by federal police on May 25, 2010.
I, Julian Heicklen certify that MEMORANDUM
OF LAW AND MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL AND PROPERTY RETURN and MOTION papers were sent on April 29,
2011, by certified U. S. mail to the following:
Pro Se Clerk, Room 230, U. S.
District Court of Inquisition, Southern District of New York, U. S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
Judge Kimba Wood, U. S. District Court of Inquisition, Southern
District of New York, U. S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
Rebecca Mermelstein, Assistant U. S. Attorney, Southern District of New
York, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY 10601
Federal Defender Sabrina Shroff, 52 Duane Street, 10th Floor, New York,
Counsel Pro Se