the following reasons, I conclude that defendant’s speech, as alleged in the indictment, is protected by the First Amendment and does not state a violation of § 373. A. Posts Regarding Juror A Defendant’s posts regarding Juror A do not expressly solicit or endeavor to persuade another person to harm Juror A. Rather, they disclose personal information about Juror A and comment on his/her sexual orientation and attitude toward race. Although the posts may be reasonably read as criticizing Juror A’s vote to convict Hale, nowhere in them does defendant expressly advocate that Juror A be harmed. Scrutiny and criticism of people involved in the investigation and prosecution of crimes is protected by the First Amendment. See Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 8 L.Ed.2d 569 (1962) (<HOLDING>); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior
holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for withholding exculpatory evidence from grand jury holding that the first amendment protects the right to criticize a grand jury investigation holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings