A former pastor and father of seven no longer faces a felony charge for distributing pamphlets on jury nullification outside a Michigan courthouse.

Keith Wood, who currently works as an insurance broker, was arrested two days before Thanksgiving and charged with jury tampering, a misdemeanor, and obstruction of justice, a felony.

Wood's attorney, David Kallman, says the dismissal of the felony this week paves the way for a trial on the misdemeanor later this year. Kallman says if Wood is found not guilty, he will be filing a federal lawsuit seeking compensation for Wood and a declaration that what he did was legal.

Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Booher found Wednesday the felony could not be charged under state court rules, which forbid charging of a common law crime when a specific statute exists for the alleged offense, in this case jury tampering.

Wood and Kallman say no jury was sitting on the day he was arrested, but Booher did not dismiss the misdemeanor charge and found the definition of a juror could include people summoned to jury duty, Kallman says.

Wood's bail initially was set at $150,000, an amount Kallman calls an outrageous attempt to punish his client. Wood was able to post a $15,000 bond using his credit card, and with the dismissal of the felony charge will be refunded the full amount.

Jury nullification is a practice in which jurors refuse to find a defendant guilty, even if the elements of a crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because they disagree with a law or its application. Prosecutors and judges generally frown upon the practice, and the right to nullification seldom is spoken of in court.

Ironically, Kallman says, he plans to present jurors at trial with the pamphlet Wood distributed to passers-by before his arrest. He says he can see no way for prosecutors to exclude it.

"We feel pretty good that we'll get this kicked," Kallman says. "This is such a clear violation of the First Amendment."

Kallman has made no secret of plans for the federal lawsuit against "anyone involved in this charade" and the county government, alleging malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. He previously said he suspected that's why prosecutors had not dropped the case.

"They know they are exposed and they have liability and they don't have immunity for what they did," he said in December. "[But] if they bring the case and somehow manage to win conviction for something, they cut our knees off."

The promised federal lawsuit could become a test case that would clarify the rights of jury nullification advocates, who periodically are arrested for distributing information – including the same pamphlet from the Fully Informed Jury Association that Wood was distributing.

A hindrance to creating a national precedent upholding their rights, jury nullification advocates say, is that they often win at the lowest court.

But there is some legal debate about whether handing out fliers outside a courthouse is protected by the First Amendment.

"If I had to bet – on this very scanty description of the facts, and the facts really do matter – I bet courts will let the government control this speech," Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told U.S. News after the charges were filed, reasoning the government can forbid discussion of jury nullification during court proceedings and that the law is "hyperdeferential" to speech restrictions "when the government has a job to do."

Other legal experts believe courts would conclude advocacy of jury nullification on a sidewalk is constitutionally protected. They note the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio found general advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment, making general advocacy of legal conduct even more clearly protected.

"If he was handing out these leaflets on a public street where other political speech is permitted, the government can't punish him for engaging in speech promoting jury nullification," Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said in reaction to the initial charges.

"Jury nullification in and of itself isn't even illegal," Somin said, and even if it were, the Brandenburg ruling protects advocacy of breaking laws unless it's likely to cause imminent criminal conduct.

A member of Mecosta County prosecutor Brian Thiede's staff said he was unable to comment on pending cases.

Kallman says he views a federal lawsuit as necessary, particularly given the firm position of the prosecution.