For months now, Federal Marshals have kept me off the sidewalk at the Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale with the threat of arresting me, if I hand out FIJA brochures on the sidewalk around the courthouse.

On October 28, 2010 after previously talking with the Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, Fred DePompa, the US Marshals at the Fort Lauderdale Courthouse were told that they cant stop me standing on the sidewalk distributing FIJA brochures.

Distributing FIJA Brochures At The Fort Lauderdale County Courthouse Today in Fort Lauderdale the weather was hot and humid.
I started off at the back of the Federal Courthouse distributing FIJA brochures to people passing by.

After about an hour I headed over to the County Courthouse to carry on distributing FIJA literature.

Today is a victory for me. The Federal Marshals at the Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale threatened me with arrest if I stood on the sidewalk around the courthouse handing out FIJA literature. On Monday I made a phone call to the Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Fred DePompa and explained to him that I had spoken with an attorney and that my First Amendment Right was being trampled on. On Thursday, October 28, 2010 I received a phone call from Michael Witkowski Protective Intelligence Inspector (PII). Mr Witkowski explained that he had spoken to his legal council and told me that I could now distribute my FIJA brochures on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse.
Thank you, Fred Depompa and Michael Witkowski for looking into this matter.

Today in Fort Lauderdale I distributed approximately 430 brochures. Another VICTORY for FREEDOM!

There will be a video to follow and update on this. Stay tuned!

Left to Right Pete Eyre, Adam Mueller & James Cox

On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 I met with Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller from Liberty on Tour in Fort Lauderdale.  Pete and Adam have been touring the US for almost 13 weeks spreading the message of freedom.

We set off at the usual place, the Federal Courthouse at: 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida distributing brochures to passers by.

After about an hour we moved into the center of Fort Lauderdale and started distributing brochures on the sidewalk outside Florida Atlantic University.  Here we had an encounter with security guard S. Blakely, who thinks that the sidewalk is private property.  Blakely called the police and when questioned by them I explained that the sidewalks are a  public forum and that I have a right to freedom of speech.   After the officer had spoken to me she went to talk to S. Blakely and then we left.  This is clearly just someone that, because she has a costume on thinks that she can push people around and tell people what to do, when really she has no authority and just likes to waste tax payers money.

After leaving the university we headed over to the Broward County Court House SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida.  Here we distributed brochures to the passers by.

Here is Pete Eyre in action distributing FIJA literature.

Today we distributed approximately 470 brochures, another great day of FIJA activism.

James Cox FIJA Activist At The Back of The Federal Courthouse In Fort Lauderdale Florida

The weather in Fort Lauderdale was awesome today, clear sky, the sun was shining and there was a nice cool breeze.

For months now I have been kept off the sidewalk in front of the Federal courthouse, in fear of the threats by the Marshals that I will be arrested.  So, I have to stand at the back of  the courthouse building, across the street at the parking garage.  But I think that this may soon change. I will keep you all posted.

After an hour at the Federal courthouse I walked into town handing brochures out as I walked.

I stopped outside the Broward college / FAU campus at 111 E. Las Olas, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I was standing outside the building on the sidewalk distributing brochures to the college students, when again the male security guard was shouting out of the door no soliciting.  I explained that I am not soliciting. Then the female security guard S Blakely, RST Supervisor came out yelling at me, that I can not give out my brochures. On a previous encounter she was told by her campus police lieutenant that we were quite within our rights to hand out the brochures due to the Florida Constitution freedom of speech.  She got on the radio and called for the police.  I carried on passing out brochures to students for 20 minutes, then left because the police did not show.

I headed over to the Broward County Courthouse at: SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida. Here there was a line of people waiting to get into the courthouse.

Today I handed out 540 brochures another great day of FIJA activism.

Broward County Courthouse Fort Lauderdale Florida

Today the weather in Fort Lauderdale was warm with a nice cool breeze.

I started off handing out brochures at the Federal Courthouse at: 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.   This courthouse is slow just like the other Federal courthouses that I attend. I seriously do not understand why these building have to be so big for the small amount of people going in them.

After an hour or so I ventured down town, passing out brochures to people that passed me by.

At the county courthouse there was a line of people sat on the wall outside. I approached every one of them, asking if they would like some information on their rights as a juror. Not many of them refused the information, and no sooner had I handed it to them, they were reading it.

I have never been bothered by the police at the county courthouse, and what is so good about it is that I can stand 6 foot away from the entrance handing out the brochures, unlike the Federal courthouse.

Today I handed out 450 brochures in total, another good day for FIJA activism.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

State of Florida,                                                                      Case No. 2010-CF-7123-O

Plaintiff,                                                                                  Division 22

Vs.

Nichole Brown,

Defendant.

_____________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Nichole Brown, by and through her undersigned attorney, and moves this Court for a new trial pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.580 and 3.600 and as grounds therefore, states as follows:

FACTS

Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of seven counts on September 20, 21, and 22, 2010.   The counts for which Defendant was convicted were two counts of robbery with a firearm, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, one count of false imprisonment with a weapon, one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of fleeing and eluding with wanton disregard.  The State proceeded on a principle theory, since there was no evidence that Defendant was present at the actual robbery, rather, she was accused of driving the getaway car.

On September 20, prior to the commencement of jury selection, or voir dire, the trial judge called a bench conference, at which he informed defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney of some literature in the form of pamphlets or brochures that was being handed out to prospective jurors in front of the courthouse.  There were two separate brochures, and copies thereof are attached as Defense exhibit “A”.   The brochures purported to be from organizations touting themselves as the “Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)” and the “American Jury Institute (AJA).”   The brochures referred to, among other issues,  “jury nullification,” “following the law,” “hanging the jury,” and “following your conscience.”  In summary, the relevant portions of the material said that jurors could disagree and hang a jury and could follow their conscience during deliberations.

At the aforementioned bench conference, the Court asked the attorneys what should be done if the jury venire was exposed to the brochures.   Defense counsel took the position that they should be ignored, since the mere mention of them would only increase the jury and the jury venire’s awareness of the issues discussed in the material, and thus create distractions and interfere with the jury’s deliberation.  The State advocated the position that the court should instruct the jury venire to ignore the brochures, assuming that the venire had been exposed to them.

The court sided with the State over defense counsel’s objection, and proceeded to discuss the material with the jury venire, once it was established that the venire had, in fact, been exposed to the material.   When the court inquired about exposure to the brochures, more than half of the prospective jurors raised their hands.  The court then told them to ignore the materials.  This left defense counsel in the unenviable position of trying to minimize the effect of the judge’s instructions regarding the brochures, while also trying to pick a jury free of taint or preconceptions.  When it became clear that the court was going to proceed to trial with a jury pool which had essentially been admonished that they could not “hang the jury” or use their conscience during the deliberations, Defense counsel elected to not discuss the issue with the venire any more, for fear of making the issue even more paramount in the jurors minds.  Defense counsel reasoned that the more the subject was discussed, the greater the likelihood that the material would become the “elephant in the room” during deliberations and cause bias toward prospective individual jurors who disagreed with other jurors.

Defense counsel made a standing objection to the mention of the brochures, and moved to quash the venire.   The issue was compounded when the Assistant State Attorney, during her voir dire, stated to the venire that a jury must reach a verdict.  Defense counsel objected to this statement, was overruled, and subsequently tried to rehabilitate the venire during his voir dire, stating that there was no requirement that they all agree.

Ultimately, a jury was seated, over defense counsel’s objections, and the case proceeded to trial.   On Wednesday, September 22, immediately preceding the charging of the jury, the Court once again made reference to the disputed material, stating that the persons who were disseminating the material were “idiots.”  This drew a contemporaneous objection from defense counsel, at which point, defense counsel was told by the Court to “take a seat.”   Subsequent to the reading of the jury instructions, counsel for the defense renewed his objection and moved for a mistrial.  The motion was denied, and the jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged on all counts.

ARGUMENT

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(b) states that “the Court shall grant a new trial if any of the following grounds is established, providing substantial rights of the Defendant were prejudiced thereby:

…(7) The Court erroneously instructed the jury on a matter of law or refused to give a proper instruction requested by the defendant.

(8) For any other cause not due to the defendant’s own fault, the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial.”

Both the jury venire and the jury itself were irreparably tainted and prejudiced by the Court’s and State’s comments regarding the brochures, as well as the State’s comment during voir dire that the jury must reach a verdict.  The material that was being handed out in front of the courthouse did not prejudice either party, and as an out-of-court representation made to potential jurors before they set foot in the courthouse, did not bear mention and was harmless.  However, once the material was discussed throughout jury selection, and especially prior to the reading of jury instructions, when the material was referred to as being handed out by “idiots,” the Defendant was denied her right to fair deliberations.

The crux of the issue is the fact that the material (which a number of jurors received) stated that “you (the juror) have a right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with the other jurors.”  (FIJA pamphlet, Defense Exhibit A)   The other brochure that was handed out to the venirepersons was from the “American Jury Institute,” and it stated that “you can ‘hang the jury with your vote if you feel it is the right thing to do.  No one can force you to change your mind, and there is no law or rule of court procedure that says a jury has to reach a verdict.”  (AJA pamphlet, Defense Exhibit A).

So, jurors were given literature that spoke of their right to disagree, and the persons that handed out the literature were called idiots by the trial judge, drawing a contemporaneous objection by the defendant’s lawyer, and causing the “idiot” comment to reflect back on defense counsel.   “…[R]eversible error may appear where the trial court deviates from the standard charge and gives improper admonitions which, among other things, make it clear that the jury must reach a verdict in the cause.”  Warren v. State, 498 So. 2d 472, 476 (3rd DCA 1986).   While Warren deals with an improper jury deadlock charge, or “Allen charge,” as opposed to the comments made prior to the deliberations in Defendant’s case, the jury in this case was not even given the opportunity to disagree or engage in constructive repartee, thus undermining the free discussion of the case and preventing the jury deliberations from flowing in their own natural direction.

Florida’s Standard Jury Instruction, the state’s revised “Allen charge,” reads in part, “that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree.”   Fl.Std.JuryInst. 4.1 (Jury Deadlock).  The jury in Defendant’s case was told this wasn’t the case.  If someone on Defendant’s jury wished to disagree, other juror or jurors could and perhaps would respond that they were doing what the brochures said was permissible, despite the judge’s admonitions that following the literature’s advice was not permissible and that it was handed out by “idiots.”  Due to these circumstances, Defendant’s jury was poisoned before they even had the opportunity to deliberate.

The State may argue that defense counsel’s attempts to rehabilitate the jury during jury selection on the hung jury issue made the matter moot.  But when defense counsel objected to the State’s comments about how a jury must reach a verdict as a misstatement of the law, the trial judge overruled counsel’s objection.  This, combined with the statements by the trial judge about the brochures further tainted the jury’s deliberations.

The disputed material also stated that “you may–and should–vote your conscience.”  (FIJA pamphlet Exhibit A). While there may be some disagreement as to whether this corresponds with an instruction to follow the law, it certainly is indisputable that an “Allen Charge”  “is designed to bring a deadlocked jury together, if possible, so that a unanimous verdict may be rendered without any juror giving up his or her conscientious convictions.”  Warren, at 475 (emphasis added).  Once again, the trial court’s derision toward the material poisoned the jury’s deliberations, and quite possibly poisoned the jury toward defense counsel, since defense counsel was compelled to object to the comments on the material and told to “take a seat.”   The fact that the court made its derisive comments immediately before it charged the jury on the law heightened the effect of the court’s statements.

In Nelson v. State, 438 So.2d, the Court stated that “[I]t is the genius of our jury system that twelve impartial persons, individually, applying a subjective standard, come to a common conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  This fundamental principle becomes subverted if a jury member is pressured to defer to the opinion of his peers, for unanimity is made a sham thereby.  An objective standard is in effect substituted for the subjective, by virtue of the implication that the majority opinion is reasonable, and the minority, unreasonable.” Id. at 1062 (4th DCA 1983).   The material in the instant case that jurors were exposed to sought to make a similar point, stating, “[Y]ou can hang the jury with your vote…”  (AJA pamphlet Exhibit A).   This is not idiotic.  This is not “garbage,” as the court referred to it outside the jury’s presence.  This is a core tenet of the American jury system.   “Nothing should be said by the trial court to the jury to that would or could likely influence the decision of a single juror to abandon his conscientious belief as to the correctness of his position.”  Lee v. State, 239 So.2d 136, 139 (Fla.1st DCA 1970) (emphasis added).

The Court’s and State’s comments on the disputed material essentially negated the potential conscientiously held beliefs of individual jurors, and potentially affected the jurors’ ability and incentive to hold out in the face of adverse opinions and hence, the jury was erroneously instructed.  The Defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial, and it was through no fault of her own.

WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Court for a new trial.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the Office of the State Attorney, 425 N. Orange Ave. Orlando, FL, on this 1st day of October, 2010.

________________

Scott Harrison

Attorney at Law


John Kurtz FIJA Coordinator Orlando

On Thursday, October 21, 2010 I had to take a trip out to Orlando, Florida to deliver FIJA brochures to John Kurtz, the coordinator for the Orlando area.
I set off from Clearwater at 4:30AM to make sure that the brochures were at the Orange County Court House, 415 N. Orange Ave Orlando Florida, by 7AM.
I arrived in good time and met John and we went to work distributing the fresh of the press Your Jury Rights True or False brochure.

We were later Joined by Jason Christopher who came and shot some video.  Later we were joined by Marla Buchwald who I gave the document Handing out FIJA Literature Around Courthouses to read, before she started distributing FIJA brochures.

Marla Buchwald Talking to an attorney

We were also joined by Mark Schmidter who is a regular with FIJA in Orlando.

The Orlando group is really making headway. The defense attorneys love FIJA Orlando, but as one defense attorney let us know “The judge is telling the jurors that the idiots outside are handing out garbage.” Both the judges and the prosecuting attorneys have a real dislike of the truth that we are telling people.

I had the chance to do a quick interview with one individual who I saw reading the  Your Jury Rights True or False brochure. Here is what he had to say:

Today we distributed 1,400 brochures at the County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida.

Hillsborough County Courthouse, 801 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida.

The morning started off overcast, cold and damp, but by noon the sky was clear and it was warm.

I arrived at the Federal Courthouse and the Marshal outside said good morning. (Today there was no, I want to search your bag, LOL!) I stuck around for about an hour handing out maybe 20 brochures. The Federal Courthouse for the size of it is very quiet, not much going on at all.

I headed over to the County Courthouse at 800 E Twiggs Street Tampa Florida, and started to distribute FIJA brochures.

I would like to point out as it is a concern for many that want to get involved.  I have never been arrested for my activism with FIJA ,nor do I intend to get arrested.   My videos show on the YouTube FIJAFL Channel how to be effective and remain safe.

Today I distributed 500 FIJA brochures.

James Cox at The Tampa County Courthouse

The weather seems to have cooled off now here in Florida. Today was sunny with a cools breeze and no humidity.

I arrived at the Federal Courthouse at: 801 N. Florida Avenue Tampa Florida and started to distribute FIJA brochures. Within a minute there was a Marshal stood at the side of me.  I had never seen this guy before. He said “I would like to search your bag.”  I said what for?” He said “It’s a matter of security.”  I said “I don’t consent to searches.” He said “Well I need to search it.” I said “No!” “This is city property it is not owned by the Federal Government.”  He said “Well as you can see we don’t even allow for parking for the public around the courthouse.” “I want to search your bag.” I said “No, I do not consent to searches, under what jurisdiction?”  At this point he turned away and started to talk into his radio.   Within twenty seconds about five Marshals appeared (these guys all know who I am, I have spoken to all these Marshals on previous occasions).  One asked “Who is he calling about, you?”  I said “I guess.”  He laughed.  The supervisor came out and spoke to the Marshal, who then stayed on the plat and never came back to search my bag. LOL.

After sticking around for about 30 minutes, I made my way over to the Hillsborough Courthouse 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida.  Today seemed slower than the norm.

This is me handing out FIJA brochures out side the County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida.

Today was another good day, I handed out approximately 530 brochures.

Gentleman Reading FIJA's 2nd Amendment Brochure

Another wonderful day of FIJA activism here in Tampa, Florida.

Clear blue sky, sun shining down with a nice cool breeze.

Today Chris LeRoux and I met at the parking lot; we then made our way up to the Federal Courthouse where we hung out for 20 minutes or so, before leaving to go to the Hillsborough County Courthouse.

Chris and I set up, he was at one end of the courthouse I was at the other.

We were joined at lunch time by Emberlea McCulligh who looks like she will be a regular with FIJA.

Here is video of Chris LeRoux handing out FIJA brochures.

Video of Emberlea handing out FIJA brochures

Today we handed out 1,650 brochures at the courthouse. GREAT JOB!

Tampa FIJA Activists - Left to Right Chris LeRoux, Emberlea McCulligh and James Cox