Three days ago, Julian Heicklen advised SDNY Judge Kimba Wood Judge Wood agreed.
Not so much with Heicklen’s letter, which wasn’t worded in such a way as to ingratiate him with the court, but that the charge must be dismissed.
But the judge, Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court, wrote that a person violated the jury tampering statute only when he or she knowingly tried to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.”
Judge Wood added that she would not “stretch the interpretation” of the statute to cover speech that was “not meant to influence” a juror’s actions in a specific case.
This was a difficult case. Not necessarily because it raised such difficult issues of law, which makes one wonder what the heck U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara was thinking when he authorized this insanely foolish prosecution that couldn’t possibly end well for him. That didn’t necessarily mean it would end well for Julian either.
Julian Heicklen did every thing in his power to lose this case. He did things others wouldn’t even dream of to antagonize everyone involved, from the judge to the lawyers who served his interests, despite his refusal to cooperate and seizing every opportunity to make their job impossible. Talk about a difficult client.
Given the circus-like atmosphere of this case, and Julian’s conduct throughout, it either tested Judge Wood’s patience or gave her chambers some great laughs. I suspect the latter. It’s hard to stay angry at a fellow who opens his letters, “Dishonorable Judge Wood ” and closes them, “Yours in disgust and hatred.” Come on, this is good stuff.
Despite all the shenanigans, the legal team never stopped doing its job, and Judge Wood made the right and reasonable decision. Julian Heicklen will be in front of 500 Pearl Street come next Monday handing out jury nullification leaflets.
A bit after mid-day, he will break for a victory luncheon in honor of the lawyers he discharged three days ago, He’s inviting restaurant suggestions and his fellow “tyranny fighters” to join him. Bring money to pay for lunch.
As for the significance of this decision, Julian Heicklen said it best in his email to his tyranny-fighting friends:
One small step for a shabby old man, but a giant leap for justice and our country.
Whether this is true has yet to be seen, but you gotta admire Julian’s sense of humor. I wonder if everyone else involved in this case will agree.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What do you think of Heicklen’s argument about the forged document?
Is it true that there was a forgery? Is it maybe-true, maybe-false?
Or does Heicklen somehow misinterpret the signs of forgery that he outlines for us in his helpful letter?
Good for Heicklen. What the hell was the USAO thinking in bringing the case to begin with, and in devoting resources to it for this long?
Also, Shroff and Statsinger (a) don’t have to deal with an obstreperous client any longer and (b) surely deserve at least partial credit for the favorable ruling, so it’s win-win for them too.
(Part of me wonders if Judge Wood’s decision was motivated by the thought, “hey, this guy is going pro se in a bench trial? jeez, get this case out of here!”)
But mainly what I wanted to say was: I’m a little surprised by how much more of Heicklen’s letter I was willing to read, simply because it was nicely formatted on some word processor, rather than handwritten or on some rickety old prison typewriter. I guess mom was right: a dapper appearance really does matter…
I give Shroff and Statsingers huge props for their efforts. They played it straight, did their job (exceptionally well) in the face of some great problems, not the least of which was the defendants. They should get a medal.
That you even ask the question is deeply disturbing.
Okay. In an effort to allay disturbance I will try to answer my own question.
I think what happened is:
(i) there MAY have been some kind of hearing on Nov 18. (Heicklen says the judge wrote to him that there was a hearing on that data, but Heicklen may be getting his facts confused on this).
(ii) some papers related to the grand jury proceedings were filed on Nov 10 and then again on Nov 18. These papers were not identical papers and did not purport to be.
(iv) the papers filed on the 10th did not, explicitly or implicitly state, that the hearing on Nov 18 (to the extent it was going to occur) had already occurred by the 10th. There is nothing in the papers filed on Nov 10 that would have required the hearing of Nov 18 to have taken place in substance.
This is how we know that the prosecutor did not empanel a fake grand jury made up his kids’ stuffed animals and a Rudy Guiliani bobble-head doll.
I mean, some people HAVE to trust that the judicial system is not a vast Kafka-esque conspiracy because their continuing livelihood depends on not harboring that sort of belief.
I am more interested in how I explain the fact that the justice system is not a vast Kafka-esque conspiracy to a person who is not required to take that basic truth as axiomatic. I always think: if the ghost of Phil Ochs sat on my shoulder, half a century high, glowing, translucent, smiling a bit uncomfortably, if he was there, how would I explain this to him?
I note Judge Wood’s conclusions of law mirrored your argument posted 2/26. She must be a regular reader.
Or perhaps I’ve grown to think like a federal judge?
It was your question. No need for you to answer your own question here. In fact, your talking to yourself does not allay concerns at all.
Just ask the guy sitting next to you wearing the tin foil hat.
The question wasn’t disturbing. Search “sham grand jury.” You’ll pull about 4 cases where there were sham grand jury subpoenas.
Heicklen’s contentions are probably something you could answer, but you don’t want to look at the documents. You probably understand those documents and why they are marked the way they are marked better than any of us. That’s fine, but please stop being a jerk about it. It does not become you.
It is your blog and you can be a jerk. I am merely asking you to stop out of niceness and politeness type concerns.
Neither ignorance nor insanity gives you special rights around here. I wasn’t a jerk before. I am now.
Ok, now you’re scaring your readers.
Judges: I like them.
This time. Tomorrow is another day.
A stunning waste of tax dollars once again. I sent the AUSA an e-mail letting her know my disgust with these proceedings.