"It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,” John Adams, one of America’s Founding Fathers, wrote.
That’s what happened Friday when an Antrim County jury fulfilled its duty and returned a verdict that acquitted three men accused of participating in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
Eric Molitor, 39, and twin brothers Michael and William Null, 41, were cleared of charges that they provided material support for an act of terrorism and possessed firearms while in the commission of a felony.
When the verdict was read, finding all three not guilty, people gasped and Molitor put his head down, his arm across his face, and wept.
These three were among the group of 14 charged in 2020 in Michigan.
Of the rest, only two other men in that group were found not guilty — and that was by a federal jury.
Nine others have either been convicted in federal or state courts or agreed to plea bargains in exchange for their cooperation. The ringleaders — Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. — were convicted last year in federal court of kidnapping conspiracy.
“It’s very dangerous for our democracy when there’s these kinds of threats with actual planning, training and scheming,” Patrick Miles, a former U.S. attorney in western Michigan, told Ed White of The Associated Press.
No doubt. And Adam Fox was one defendant some said was “the real deal.” He’s serving a long sentence in a federal facility, which is appropriate in his case.
“I still think that these were legitimate cases that needed to be brought,” Miles said, even though the cases ended with a “mixed bag of results.”
In fact, they ended up with a total of five acquittals in state or federal court.
And there were key flaws in the state’s case, particularly in this one. Those flaws may provide insight for the feds or state investigators about what not to do in these operations in the future.
The overzealous behavior of FBI informants certainly raised concerns that defense attorneys were quick to point out. To what degree did the participation of those undercover officers actually contribute to the crime and the allegations that were brought against the men being charged?
Were these men guilty of hanging out with some nasty characters? Yes.
Were they talking all kinds of trash? Certainly.
Were they chest beating — as one defense attorney described it? Likely.
But did they have any actual intention of doing what they were accused of doing?
Was there truly an actual threat?
The state failed to show that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.
Gov. Whitmer’s Chief of Staff JoAnne Huls said these verdicts would “further encourage and embolden radical extremists trying to sow discord and harm public officials or law enforcement.”
We doubt it.
If anything, these verdicts prove, once again, that this system of ours still works. What a great example of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The jury, ultimately, serves as the conscience of those people, weighing the evidence as presented, and convicting only if the decision is unanimous.
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most precious and important rights enshrined in law to protect the people. In our view, it’s right up there with freedom of the press.
These are the freedoms of self-governance that protect us from despots and dictators. Because of these freedoms, Senior Reporter Mardi Link can cover this monthlong case and report the outcome of this trial.
We wish we could speak to the jurors about their experiences serving on the panel. We would like to thank them for a job well done.
Most important to emphasize, though, is this key point: The system works.
And justice was served.
