A TIME FOR JUSTICE
Jury Tampering Trial
by Julian Heicklen
Presented at the Freedom Law Conference, 2012
Starting on October 19, 2009,
Julian Heicklen distributed
fully informed jury literature on the plaza in front of the U. S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007. The literature informed passersby,
including jurors, that they were not obligated to
uphold the law. The
obligation of a jury was to see that justice was done.
appeared 14 times at the courthouse over a span
of 22 months. Heicklen was arrested on 11 occasions. On 7 of
these occasions, he was cited for violation of U. S. Regulation
41 CFR Sec 102–74.415(c) prohibiting distributing of literature
on federal property. He failed to pay any of the
$100 fines or appear at
court hearings. The U. S. Attorney dismissed all the
cases. Instead, he was charged with the misdemeanor crime of
jury tampering in a grand jury hearing of November 10, 2010.
Heicklen was not notified of the grand jury hearing,
so he could not attend. The
Assistant U. S. Attorney, Rebecca
Mermelstein lied to the grand jury by claiming that Heicklen had
tampered with a specific unnamed juror and discussed jury
nullification in front of a jury. Thus the indictment was invalid.
the trial proceeded. At a
hearing in which Heicklen asked for a jury trial in
conformance with Article III, Section 2, and Amendment VI of
the U. S. Constitution, the Court denied this right.
Subsequently, On November 29, 2011, Heicklen moved for a
jury trial, the names and addresses of the grand jurors, the
tampered jury, and the tampered juror, so that he could interview
them in the presence of a court reporter and a person who could
and would deliver an oath in accordance with court rules. His
motions have been ignored.
Subsequently Heicklen demanded a jury trial. The requesthas
been ignored by the Judge. The copy sent to the Pro Se
clerk was returned with the notice that the Court would not
accept correspondence from him.
times that a court hearing was scheduled, the judge
granted delays. She does not write a notice to Heicklen. He
receives a copy of the U. S. Attorney’s
request with a stamp of a
new date and the judges signature. No certificate of service is
included as required by court rules. There is no way for
Heicklen to know if the communication is authentic.
defense has requested a bill of particulars on 3
occasions. The U. S. Attorney is obligated to submit one, but
just ignores the request. He has failed to identify any witness
that will testify.
The Constitution of the State of NY requires the
jury to judge the law as well as the
fact as given in
Article I § 8: “… and
the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.”
The U. S. Attorney has stated in writing that this indeed is the
She states on page 6 of her Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motions:
“Thus while the
courts in this Circuit have
acknowledged the jury’s ability to nullify, courts have
also uniformly held that jury nullification is improper
because it ‘is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s
oath to apply the law as instructed by the court’.”
course when a juror takes that oath, the assumption is that the
judge will tell the truth. No one is obligated to follow an illegal
order. If the judge ordered the jurors to take off all of their
clothes because that is the law in his court, should the jurors
comply? Furthermore the jurors also took an oath to uphold the
Constitution, which would take precedence in any event.
has distributed this literature in 64 appearances at
40 federal district courts. At three of these court he was arrested
for distribution of literature in violation of U. S. Regulation 41
CFR Sec 102–74.415(c) prohibiting distributing of literature on
federal property. He
refused to pay any the fines or appear at the hearings.
All three of the courts have dismissed the charges,
because they are
unconstitutional violations of Amendment I. By failing to
enforce the regulation, 40 federal courts have agreed that federal
courtyards are public forums that permit freedom of speech.
It is now almost 16 months since the grand jury
indictment, and absolutely
nothing has happened in this case. The pre-trial
procedures have not even begun. Thus Heicklen has been
denied a speedy trial in conflict with Amendment VI of the U. S.
obvious that the court will not bring this case to trial,
but just wait for Heicklen (who will be 80 years old on March 9,
2012) to die. The Court is in the uncomfortable position of
being unable to dismiss the case outright, because it will be an
admission of criminal activity by every judge in the country for
lying to jurors by instructing them to uphold the law as he gives
it. Every judge in the country is guilty of perjury with the intent
of jury tampering.
Furthermore there is no way that Heicklen could get an
impartial trial, as required by Amendment VI of the U. S.
Constitution, in any court in the country, because all of the
judges in the country have a vested interest in the outcome.
DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL
Since jury nullification is now
acknowledged by the
U. S. Attorney to be legal
and can be discussed on courthouse
property outside the courthouse (a public forum), the trial of
Julian Heicklen for jury tampering has dragged to a close. The
instructions that federal judges give in the U. S. District Courts
in the 2nd Circuit include the statement:
“Regardless of any opinion that you may have as to
what the law may be or ought to be, it is your sworn
duty to follow the law as I give it to you.”
The judge is lying twice. The jurors are not
obligated to uphold the law
at all if they decide that justice will not be done.
Furthermore, if the law is upheld, it must be that written in the
statute, not the judge’s rendition of it. Because I have exposed
all federal judges as liars, my case cannot be tried, because there
would be no impartial judge. In fact they should all be on trial
for perjury to subvert justice.
No prisoner in the United
has had an impartial legal
trial. If they did not have a jury trial, then Amendment VI of
the U. S. Constitution requirement for a jury trial was denied to
them. If they had a jury trial, the judge tampered the jury by
misinforming it of its duty.
Thus in all criminal cases in this
country, the defendants were denied a legal fair trial. All of
them should be given amnesty and released from prison
Heicklen proposes that
tribunals should be established to try
each of the judges in the United
States and punish them for
jury tampering, if found guilty. No judge or
attorney should be permitted to sit on this tribunal, because all of
them have a conflict of interest. They all are guilty, either by
direct participation or by condoning criminal behavior of the
courts, of which they are officers.