Indictment for jury tampering dismissed

Listen to this article

A federal indictment against former Rochester resident and retired Penn State University Chemistry Professor Julian P. Heicklen for jury tampering has been dismissed by Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Heicklen was indicted in November 2010 by U.S. Attorney Prett Bharara for attempting to influence the actions and decisions of jurors by distributing pamphlets advocating jury nullification in front of the SDNY court entrance in Manhattan.

Judge Wood said the federal jury tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. §1504, was not widely utilized, courts have had few opportunities to analyze it and the decisions applying it all differed from Heicklen’s conduct, which wasn’t aimed at any specific case or intended to affect the outcome of a specific case.

“One small step for a shabby old man, but a giant leap for justice and our country,” Heicklen said of the dismissal.

“Based upon the plain meaning of the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1504, reinforced by relevant judicial interpretations and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the court holds that a person violates the statute only when he knowingly attempts to influence the action or decision of a juror upon an issue or matter pending before that juror or pertaining to that juror’s duties by means of written communication made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror or in relation to a point in dispute between the parties before that juror,” Judge Wood said in her opinion.

Since Heicklen’s pamphlets merely discussed the role of juries in society and urged jurors to follow their conscience regardless of judicial instructions, Judge Wood found Heicklen’s actions did not focus on a specific single case.

“Because the Indictment does not allege that Heicklen attempted to influence a juror through a written communication made in relation to a specific case before a juror or in relation to a point in dispute before a juror, the court finds that the indictment fails to state all of the elements of the offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and must be dismissed as legally insufficient,” Judge Wood concluded.

Judge Wood noted that attempts to influence a trial juror or grand juror in order to influence the outcome are still prohibited and distributing leaflets to jurors in the immediate vicinity of a courthouse “may still be sanctioned through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

“The court’s holding merely maintains the existing balance that federal courts have found between freedom of speech and the administration of justice,” Justice Wood said.

Heicklen said he would be back on the Southern District of New York courthouse steps, distributing pamphlets advising jurors to follow their conscience and not judicial instructions in determining a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Heicklen said Judge Woods’ decision “means that the jury has the right, actually the duty, to judge the law as well as the facts. If the jury decides to uphold the law, it must be the law in the written statute.

“If the judge does not provide the jury with the written statute, the jury must find the defendant not guilty, because of reasonable doubt,” he said.

“In this country, the people are sovereign and should make decisions about criminality,” Heicklen said in a letter to Judge Wood before she dismissed the indictment.

In addition to his campaign advocating jury nullification, Heicklen has actively campaigned against what he calls “morality laws” that criminalize marijuana, gambling and prostitution. 

The self described “Jewish libertarian” said he got started in activism and studying the Constitution at Monroe High School before attending Cornell University and the University of Rochester for his doctorate in Chemistry.

He previously ran unsuccessfully for Pennsylvania attorney general and the New Jersey Assembly.