In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I have been called three times and served three times. I guess they really do like uneducated people. Of course try telling that to the Lawyer, the doctor, the College Professor and the Business owner that also served with me. Don
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
I have been called three times and served three times. I guess they really do like uneducated people. Of course try telling that to the Lawyer, the doctor, the College Professor and the Business owner that also served with me. Don
Maybe they wanted someone that was "nuts" to add to the diversity?
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by BaseJumper
We are talking about the government violation of constitutional rights.
Do you believe that such laws would make it on the books and NOT be challenged as unconstitutional? What laws would those be? Please show me a case where the government is clearly violating someone's constitutional rights.
I'd prefer the Appellate System handle such issues than Joe Patriot. As I noted, Joe will achieve nothing but a mistrial and a new jury. Eventually, they'll get 12 to agree.
The Appellate System is there to overturn rulings based on laws that are deemed unconstitutional. That's what happened in Washington DC with personal ownership of guns! The Appellate System did its job and ruled that Washington was violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens.
It was the duty of the citizens of Washington DC to see that such a law never got on the books, but they failed in their duty, didn't they?
Though uncostitutional, we were saddled with the 18th Amendment. Do a bit of research and you'll see that widespread jury nullification was a major factor in it's repeal.
Our founding fathers empowered us with jury nullification to insure that power ultimately remained with the citizens, not simply left up to a judiciary that may become corrupted.
quote:Originally posted by BaseJumper
Gonna cost me $10 a day to park (they do not validate parking for jurors from what I hear) and even if I bring my own lunch I am still "paying" for the privilege it would seem.
Now, as i said, I fully intend to go down there and do my duty. I am still going to * because it will be typical government run operation with lots of wasted time and frustration run by disgruntled government employees that have been there too long to be fired unless they kill someone and leave the body in the lobby for too long.
If I actually get on a case and can do some service to community it will be worth it. Give me a chance to read a book or two.
Using my vacation days for a real vacation. I'll just suck it up on this one as I refuse to let this be my only days away from the office.
I may take my laptop and give you a hour by hour update if I get too bored. no since not sharing the "fun" [:D]
I would be very surprised if they don't validate parking. I've been on jury duty at five different courthouses & they all had free parking. In Riverside your jury badge even got you free transit on the local buses.
I don't understand why supposedly flag-waiving "true" Americans try to wriggle, squirm and lie to get out of jury duty.
Because most people can not afford to lose money from work to make $12.50/day. They need to up the jury duty pay to $50/day and that would help compensate people better.
Jury nullification is a tool I hope is never used. They way large government is pushing to relieve us of individual rights "for our own good" I am predicting it will grow in popularity.
Sat on a jury for a murder trial years ago. That was very interesting. Employer paid my regular salary but I had to hand over my jury pay to my employer, think it came to $36.00 or so.
Wife (killer of snakes) was on a jury trial for a rape.
I feel its your civic duty to sit on a jury if called. Think its an insult by paying people $8 or $15 dollars a day for jury duty and not include a meal. Thats adding injury to insult.
I was summoned and served on my first jury in May. My company paid me the difference from what I received from the court. The court also paid the parking, just had to show the summons.
I was summoned 3x and sat on one jury for a civil case. When living in Crook Co IL, I would have to go down to Chicago. Haven't been called while I lived in Dupage Co. IL. Haven't been called in a least 10 years.
Marine Amputee Acquitted On Gun Possession Charges
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009; Page B01
After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In the 2006 incident, Cpl. Melroy H. Cort, 24, and his wife, Samantha, were en route from their home in Columbus, Ohio, to Walter Reed. Cort's legs had been amputated above the knees when he was wounded by a makeshift bomb in Ramadi during his third tour of duty in Iraq.
The couple's car got a flat tire, forcing them to pull over at a car repair shop in the 5000 block of Georgia Avenue NW. While there, Cort said, he reached into the glove compartment, removed a 9mm pistol and put it in his jacket pocket.
A witness who noticed Cort handling the gun called police, who arrested and handcuffed Cort while he was sitting in his wheelchair. He was charged with three counts of carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of ammunition. He spent the night in the D.C. jail before returning to Walter Reed.
He was assigned a public defender, who encouraged him to plead guilty. But Cort refused, because a felony on his record could cost him his military benefits. So he decided to represent himself.
"I had to fight for myself," he said yesterday. "I wasn't going to plead guilty and lose everything."
During his trial, which began Friday before Judge Lynn Leibovitz, the two arresting officers testified that Cort had thrown up his hands and told them he had a gun in his pocket when they approached him.
Taking the stand in his defense, Cort tried to tell his personal story: How he enlisted in the Marines in 2004 after graduating from Ohio's Wright State University with a business degree. How he went to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, when he was was critically injured. How he was fitted with prosthetic legs and honorably discharged in 2007.
But Leibovitz ordered him to discuss only the case at hand.
Cort, who said he had a permit to carry the gun in Ohio, said he had it with him because he had moved out of his house in anticipation of an extended stay at Walter Reed.
He said his commanding officer had advised him to take the gun to the armory on Walter Reed's base as soon as he arrived.
Cort said 12 rounds of ammunition were in his car trunk, but police said the ammunition was in the gun's clip.
Although acquitting him of the gun charges, the jury found Cort guilty of possessing ammunition, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to time already spent in the D.C. jail.
Cort, his wife and their 3-month-old daughter, Charlott, now plan to drive home to Columbus, where Samantha Cort is in real estate. Cort said he plans to appeal the verdict and tend to his family.
"I just plan to take care of my daughter," Cort said.
MARIJUANA TRIAL: Swift found not guilty; jurors shake hands with defendant
01/29/2009, 2:46 pm
Print this story | Email this story
Dan Churney, danc@mywebtimes.com, 815-431-4050
On Wednesday in La Salle County Circuit Court, several jurors shook hands with an emotional Loren J. Swift after finding him not guilty of a marijuana charge that would have sent him to prison.
"I'm so relieved. I've got my life back. I'm so grateful," a teary Swift told reporters outside the courtroom."I'm going to dedicate my life to doing what's right," which he explained meant he was going to get himself reinstated in the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The five-woman, seven-man jury deliberated about two hours, giving the verdict at 1:30 p.m. The 59-year-old Swift, of rural Streator, was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The state police drug task force arrested him Oct. 26, 2007, at his home, saying they found 25 pounds of marijuana and 50 pounds of marijuana plants. He spent 49 days in custody before posting $10,000 bond. His record included a conviction in 2003 for possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Jurors were chosen Monday and testimony began Tuesday, with Circuit Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr. presiding. In the courthouse lobby, after the verdict, two male jurors talked and laughed with Swift and his attorney, Randy Gordon; one of the jurors patted Swift on his back. However, one of these jurors refused to admit he was a juror when The Times approached him for comment about the verdict; the other juror didn't deny he was indeed a juror, but nevertheless refused to talk.
Gordon told reporters he believed a key portion of testimony that favored his client was from a prosecution chemist, who didn't know how much of the plants seized could be smoked, with Gordon noting the stalk and sterile seeds of a marijuana plant are not illegal. Gordon, of Morris, was a La Salle County prosecutor for several years in the 1990s.
During the trial, Swift testified he smoked marijuana to relieve physical pain, as well as to cope with posttraumatic stress syndrome. Swift served aboard an aircraft carrier for 10 months in 1970 off shore of Vietnam during the conflict there, involved with the landing and launching of helicopters. He also flew helicopter missions to Vietnam to deliver supplies.
Swift denied he sold marijuana, as Prosecutor Pete Siena alleged.
Jurors interrupted their deliberations at one point, to re-enter the courtroom and look at evidence, including containers of marijuana, scales and a heat vacuum sealer that were set in the middle of the courtroom. They then returned to the jury room, delivering the verdict shortly after. Police and the prosecutor alleged the scales and sealer showed Swift packaged marijuana for sale, but admitted they found no records, small plastic bags or phone numbers that also would have suggested Swift sold the drug.
Police testified that after they went to Swift's home in 2007, Swift invited them inside his house, leading them through rooms where he had marijuana, including a cedar-lined room Swift used for drying marijuana. He also showed them a garden overgrown with weeds, in which marijuana plants were hidden.
State's Attorney Brian Towne said the seized marijuana and plants would be taken to a state facility, where drugs seized by police anywhere in Illinois are burned. He added police had seized 80 pounds of marijuana from Swift, but the state laboratory only had time to process 25 pounds as evidence.
Swift wore a suit and tie during his trial, as he did at almost every previous court hearing. At recent hearings and at trial, he walked hunched, used a cane and wore a medical-style boot on his right foot.
One of the male jurors who congratulated Swift in the lobby, also used a cane, having an artificial leg. After the trial, a courthouse security officer found this juror had carried a cell phone into the courtroom inside the leg, although cell phones are prohibited in courtrooms.
A couple of courthouse observers speculated after the verdict that jurors had engaged in "jury nullification," meaning jurors believed Swift was guilty, but did not believe he deserved punishment, so voted not guilty.
After a reporter asked Gordon if he believed jurors ruled for Swift out of sympathy, Gordon said they should have ruled for Swift, because Swift was not guilty.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
quote:Originally posted by drobs
You may be the lone hope to protect Joe Patriot from life in the gulag.
This is known as "jury nullification", and is sometimes used by minorities because they feel THE SYSTEM is unfairly biased against minorities.
Your method would result in a hung jury, a mistrial, and another go-around with a new jury.
It's NOT your duty as a juror to interpret the law as you see fit. If the law says "no guns", and Joe Patriot is caught with a gun, your duty is to enforce the law. Joe goes to jail.
blah blah blah
Ignoring the law for the way you think things should be is not the duty of a juror. If you're not happy with the law, work to have it changed.
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
You're forgetting a well known example.
Though uncostitutional, we were saddled with the 18th Amendment.
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.
So, the 18th Amendment WAS constitutional, and supported by a large majority of the populace at the time. Forget about the 2/3 required for an Amendment to become law? Everyone THOUGHT it was an answer to a problem, but they forgot you can't legislate morality. After 11 years (IIRC), they wised up and passed the 21st to repeal it. Again, a 2/3 majority of states required for it to pass (so much for the Equal Rights Amendment, huh, guys?)
I find it funny/tragic that BaseJumper thought it "sad" when minorities "abused" jury nullification, but he thought it would be just fine if HE did it for any "unconstitutional" laws. Isn't that just as sad, or does BJ live a double-standard?
As for the 2 posts by "drobs", those are NOT examples of jury nullification, since the jury was UNANIMOUS in its decision. THAT is the answer you're looking for, BJ, not the irrational, random nullification of a standing law that YOU don't happen to like.
quote:Originally posted by A J Christ
Sat on a jury for a murder trial years ago. That was very interesting. Employer paid my regular salary but I had to hand over my jury pay to my employer, think it came to $36.00 or so.
Wife (killer of snakes) was on a jury trial for a rape.
I feel its your civic duty to sit on a jury if called. Think its an insult by paying people $8 or $15 dollars a day for jury duty and not include a meal. Thats adding injury to insult.
On a Federal case we did get meals at lunch time after we started deliberations. They kept us all together & we had to walk from the Federal courthouse to Chinatown in L.A.
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
Your answer to what Indy? An example of an unconstitutional law? Do you believe that our government has our best interests at heart and will "not let an unconstitutional law get on the books"? You are naive, and may well be a "kid".
Does not just have to be a standing law. Can be an illegal prosecution. Those two border agents got a pardon, but should never have done the time they served. The jurors were obviously playing by the rules you espouse. That would have been a good place for jury nullification.
There was a story of a man waking up to the sounds of crashing in his house. police were serving a no knock warrant. He killed one thinking it was a burglar. When they announced "Police" he laid down his weapon and complied. He was charged (not sure if he was convicted) of manslaughter. IIRC the police had the wrong house. wrong place wrong time, the home owner pays the price for defending himself? Another good place for the jury to nullify even any illegal gun charges (not sure if there even were any and it's too late to google it).
So, IK, if you were just shortening my handle to attempt a slight, you can just call me Neal. leave the childishness, Mr Kid, in your playroom. Just like many of the liberties we have, they can be abused. Sad, but true. Would you rather not have them? Would you rather trust the government to "look out for your best interests"? They would never do anything to hurt you since you are such a law abiding citizen and all. Right? As sad as it is to watch We the People pay for the upkeep of undeniably guilty and disgusting killers on death row, the system is not perfect and they deserve the chance to appeal so that we can protect the innocent that may have been framed, railroaded or mistakenly identified and ended up there being innocent of any crime.
If you still hold to the fantasy that our forthright elected officials would never let anything happen to the good guys, then enjoy your life with the rest of the sheep. Many of us will not line up quietly for the shearing.
EDIT: Indy Kid, you really should break out the Webster's and look up Jury Nullification.
quote:Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law-that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge-which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is-but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.
I can't, drobs can't, no one can, practice jury nullification alone. It has to be a group effort. Go ahead, read it, it's okay. You are young, we understand. go back to your Warcraft game and let the adults handle the big decisions.
quote:Originally posted by countryfarmer
I don't understand why supposedly flag-waiving "true" Americans try to wriggle, squirm and lie to get out of jury duty.
Because most people can not afford to lose money from work to make $12.50/day. They need to up the jury duty pay to $50/day and that would help compensate people better.
Freedom isn't free.
quote:Originally posted by BaseJumper
Your answer to what Indy? An example of an unconstitutional law? Do you believe that our government has our best interests at heart and will "not let an unconstitutional law get on the books"? You are naive, and may well be a "kid".
Does not just have to be a standing law. Can be an illegal prosecution. Those two border agents got a pardon, but should never have done the time they served. The jurors were obviously playing by the rules you espouse. That would have been a good place for jury nullification.
There was a story of a man waking up to the sounds of crashing in his house. police were serving a no knock warrant. He killed one thinking it was a burglar. When they announced "Police" he laid down his weapon and complied. He was charged (not sure if he was convicted) of manslaughter. IIRC the police had the wrong house. wrong place wrong time, the home owner pays the price for defending himself? Another good place for the jury to nullify even any illegal gun charges (not sure if there even were any and it's too late to google it).
So, IK, if you were just shortening my handle to attempt a slight, you can just call me Neal. leave the childishness, Mr Kid, in your playroom. Just like many of the liberties we have, they can be abused. Sad, but true. Would you rather not have them? Would you rather trust the government to "look out for your best interests"? They would never do anything to hurt you since you are such a law abiding citizen and all. Right? As sad as it is to watch We the People pay for the upkeep of undeniably guilty and disgusting killers on death row, the system is not perfect and they deserve the chance to appeal so that we can protect the innocent that may have been framed, railroaded or mistakenly identified and ended up there being innocent of any crime.
If you still hold to the fantasy that our forthright elected officials would never let anything happen to the good guys, then enjoy your life with the rest of the sheep. Many of us will not line up quietly for the shearing.
EDIT: Indy Kid, you really should break out the Webster's and look up Jury Nullification.
quote:Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law-that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge-which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is-but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.
I can't, drobs can't, no one can, practice jury nullification alone. It has to be a group effort. Go ahead, read it, it's okay. You are young, we understand. go back to your Warcraft game and let the adults handle the big decisions.
Well, Neal, I was tired of writing "BaseJumper" all the time. If I were to slight you, it would be obvious.
It's so nice that you think Wiki is a reliable source of information. Why did you lie to everyone about the supposed Webster's definition of "jury nullification", when you simply copied and pasted the Wiki reference? That definition came from Microsoft Encarta, by the way.
It would also be nice if you included the ENTIRE entry! You left out this part, which was farther down the entry:
"In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)"
Therefore, if a SINGLE juror appears to be in the process of acting against the letter of the law, or instructions given to them by the Judge, they can be removed.
Once again, the result would be:
a) The jury convicts, once an alternate is seated and a new vote is taken;
b) The Judge declares a mistrial, a new trial is ordered with a new jury.
As for "illegal prosecutions", I included the name "Nifong". Did you NOT look into that before posting? Let me make it easy for you. He the dim-wit DA who tried to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse team for an alleged rape, that, in fact, never happened. He was eventually disbarred by the NC State Bar Association for his illegal actions. He did, in fact, serve 1 day in jail for contempt of court, based on his misconduct during the entire affair.
It's sad how you and drobs seem to think that I lack the capacity for rational thought, and how you go about insinuating all sorts of behaviors for which you have absolutely no evidence. All of your claims about what I may or may not believe should be left out of your posts, since it is simply baseless grand-standing, and childish name-calling. If you wish to read how I feel about some of these issues, then read my post about the "What If" - that is, what would I change if I had the ability to do so. I'm sure it would enlighten you greatly about my position on many issues.
I'll leave the thread now, as you've taken the matter far off-track and turned it into a personal attack against me and what I may or may not believe. Have the maturity to leave the name-calling off the board. You go battle your squirrels instead.
Sincerely,
David
PS: Tell your kid to have fun at Illinois. When I attended Purdue in the Nuclear Engineering program, the Big Ten football games were always a good time. Even had a picture of the guys on my dorm floor, including all the underage, sharing a beer from our pony keg with the PRESIDENT of Purdue at that time! He knew there were times when the rules should be followed, and when they could (and should) be ignored! Guess that made it "Presidential Nullification"!
David, it was about 3AM when I posted it. I told you to look it up. Glad you found it. I never said I thought that Wiki was reliable. Go read it again. I told you to look it up in Webster's, as IMO I believe that to be reliable. Wiki was just a quick C&P to get you started on the right track as you you were obviously incorrect in your belief that one person could nullify the jury. s you stated, if there is one problematic juror the court can easily replace him.
If the jury, as a whole, seeks to nullify (as they did for many prohibition cases and in the one mentioned above by drobs) they would just come back with a "Not Guilty" verdict. That is the whole point.
There is no mistrial, an injustice has not been served thanks to "We the People" despite evidence that might show the defendant guilty in the eyes of the government. There is no new trial.
I never said you lacked the capacity for rational thought. You seem to be able to demonstrate that for yourself by accusing me of things I have not said. I made no personal attacks against you. You are mistaken.
In the Duke case you mentioned, there was one DA that grossly overstepped his authority. I am glad the other people involved in the case saw fit to stand him down and take action. That may not always happen. Jury nullification is a tool "We the People" have at our disposal to ensure the power of the judiciary does not overstep its limits.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
You are so wrong and ignorant on this subject that's it's not even funny! Do some research on the topic before trying to discuss it...and after that come back and apologize...save some face.
quote:Originally posted by
I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. There it is.
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
Well, despite my previous statement that I would leave this thread, misinformation requires me to respond to some others who feel they know more than anyone else on this matter.
"Txs" seems to possess the ability to know the intent of the Founding Fathers by proclaiming, "Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens." On what do you base this ability to know their intent?
He also states the the 18th was, "repealed in short order", when in fact, the 18th was ratified on Jan. 29, 1919, and its repeal with the 21st occurred on Dec. 5th, 1933. I don't think anyone can logically consider almost 15 years to be "in short order". That's almost a full generation under the rule of the 18th.
Txs, our Founding Fathers never "empowered us" with the notion of jury nullification. I doubt you'd find any reference to it before the middle of the last century, when civil disobedience became a tool that the oppressed could use to fight injustice. As has been noted, a Judge who suspects a juror of using jury nullification (and this was the context in which I was discussing it, Neal, not the act of an entire jury returning a verdict that is clearly in opposition to the evidence presented). Several here seem to believe that JN is such a wonderful tool! However, we have only to look at how some (e.g., Klansmen in the 1940s-50s) were acquitted for obviously heinous crimes to understand how such a tool can and has been used for evil. Did the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" teach you nothing about the abuse of jury nullification? That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order". Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors. However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in". Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue. Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors. And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple. I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
Once again, let me refer to the following: "In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)". So, yes, intent to violate the juror's oath by jury nullification (of the single juror, not the entire jury), is grounds for having that juror removed. And I suspect the Judge wouldn't look kindly on your actions! You might find yourself in contempt of court and behind bars for trying it!
quote:As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Juries vote to convict even when there is reasonable doubt; happens all the time. So, even though a determination could not be made, juries have gone ahead and voted to convict. Are you so naive to believe otherwise?
Furthermore, the statement, "...you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do." is truly frightening. As I noted previously, a person could use this "power" to vote not guilty for a person accused of possession of child porn! Your "power" has the capacity to do as much evil as good. That is why it is a "power" that should never be considered by a juror.
quote:Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
Welcome to the U.S.
The role of the juror is not to ascertain the "correctness" of the charge. Their role is to determine if the prosecution has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant(s) is or is not guilty as charged. Nothing more, nothing less, whether you agree with the charge or not.
The less one messes around with the legal system, the better off everyone will be.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
[Once again, let me refer to the following: "In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)". So, yes, intent to violate the juror's oath by jury nullification (of the single juror, not the entire jury), is grounds for having that juror removed. And I suspect the Judge wouldn't look kindly on your actions! You might find yourself in contempt of court and behind bars for trying it!You need to move beyond Wikipedia to obtain a firm grasp of this subject.
You're indicating a belief that a juror in the U.S. can be jailed simply because they returned a particular verdict or voted a particular way. Think that one over carefully.
Our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was probably on a first name basis with the framers of our Constitution, is famously quoted as saying, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Due to what he'd observed in his lifetime he well understood that power can be subverted by a judiciary and stood firmly that in a court of law it should ultimately be in the hands of the people.
You see it as a bad thing that mere citizens could ignore laws through nullification powers, but don't seem to understand the good that's come from this. To give a very well known example, do you recall from high school history class how northern juries refused to convict people for harboring slaves in violation of standing laws because they felt they were unjust? These widespread jury nullification were a major contributor to forcing our government to abolish slavery and all laws supporting it.
We're seeing it in modern times in everything from assisted suicide cases to refusal to convict in medicinal marijuana cases. Notice no jurors are being thrown in jail for these.
Nullification has been used throughout our nation's history, but in modern times our government has become power mad and has made efforts to stymie the exercise of this right, but cannot outright abolish it. As it currently stands a Circuit Court has ruled that a juror can be removed from the panel if it becomes known their prior intention is to nullify, but if a juror actually exercises this right the verdict stands with no repercussions because they've done nothing illegal.
As our founding fathers clearly saw it, the refusal to enforce unjust laws by a juror is not only a right - it's a duty.
I rather enjoy jury duty. Been called twice over the years. Last time got called for FED jury in CHARLESTON. Got picked too. Made some pretty good money for app 3 days. They only paid $30 a day.Per Diem and mileage is where I racked up. With the court house being in Down town Charleston at the "Four Corners of Govt" it was pretty steep. They were giving me $153 a day plus $.30 a mile. I was staying with a friend in Summerville so it cost me nothing. I was laid off at the time so I made out right well. Was An interesting case tho. Guy and his wife by the name Muckenfuss were taking 10-22 Rugers and making them go full auto. We were in the jury room and the judge called us back in and released us. Kinda made me sad cause I had already decided they were innocent. Aint no harm in a full auto 10-22. Just some poor guy trying to make some TOYS. Found out later they had made a little plea bargain[:(]
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by ECC
I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. There it is.
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
Welcome to the U.S.
Your post makes it look as if I made this comment...and that is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
Well, despite my previous statement that I would leave this thread, misinformation requires me to respond to some others who feel they know more than anyone else on this matter.
"Txs" seems to possess the ability to know the intent of the Founding Fathers by proclaiming, "Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens." On what do you base this ability to know their intent?
He also states the the 18th was, "repealed in short order", when in fact, the 18th was ratified on Jan. 29, 1919, and its repeal with the 21st occurred on Dec. 5th, 1933. I don't think anyone can logically consider almost 15 years to be "in short order". That's almost a full generation under the rule of the 18th.
Txs, our Founding Fathers never "empowered us" with the notion of jury nullification. I doubt you'd find any reference to it before the middle of the last century, when civil disobedience became a tool that the oppressed could use to fight injustice. As has been noted, a Judge who suspects a juror of using jury nullification (and this was the context in which I was discussing it, Neal, not the act of an entire jury returning a verdict that is clearly in opposition to the evidence presented). Several here seem to believe that JN is such a wonderful tool! However, we have only to look at how some (e.g., Klansmen in the 1940s-50s) were acquitted for obviously heinous crimes to understand how such a tool can and has been used for evil. Did the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" teach you nothing about the abuse of jury nullification? That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order". Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors. However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in". Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue. Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors. And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple. I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
Do a search right here on GB about the subject...you'll find that this has been discussed in depth here.
I've served on 7 Juries and was the Foreperson on 4 of them. It's your duty as a citizen of this country. I always thought that it might just be simpler to create a Professinal Jury position instead of going through all the cost associated with calling in 75-100 people to only end up with 6 or 12 as jurors and then an alternate or 2.
I spent 1 day a week for 3 months on a grand jury, made some serious cash from the state off that. [xx(] I was lucky enough my employer allowed me to work evenings to make up all my time each week.
Originally posted by indy_kid
"Txs" seems to possess the ability to know the intent of the Founding Fathers by proclaiming, "Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens." On what do you base this ability to know their intent?
By simply reading our Constitution. It's actually a pretty straighforward document and if you take the time to read it you'll see that no articles were designed to in any way to restrict the private conduct of the citizens.
He also states the the 18th was, "repealed in short order", when in fact, the 18th was ratified on Jan. 29, 1919, and its repeal with the 21st occurred on Dec. 5th, 1933. I don't think anyone can logically consider almost 15 years to be "in short order". That's almost a full generation under the rule of the 18th.
Just under fifteen years is in fact short order when you're discussing the life span of an Amendment to our Constitution, especially if you put this time frame in context with the history of our country - but this is sidetracking.
As I previously stated, jury nullification did in fact play a large role in this Amendment's repeal. For some reason you instead chose to argue your perception of how long this time frame could be considered and ignored discussing whether or not widespread nullification of Volstead Act/18th Amendment violations occurred and it's role in their repeal. You must've looked it up and discovered how futile your argument actually was.
Txs, our Founding Fathers never "empowered us" with the notion of jury nullification. I doubt you'd find any reference to it before the middle of the last century, when civil disobedience became a tool that the oppressed could use to fight injustice.
Jury nullification wasn't an unknown concept to our founding fathers. You're apparently unaware that this was a component of Common Law for many centuries and early in our nation's history was was in fact called for by Thomas Jefferson in his fight over the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Notice that nothing in our Constitution addresses nullification, but the 10th Amendment clarifies the citizen's right to utilize it by stating, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You seem unfamiliar with the basic concept that our laws don't state what you can do, only what you can't. Even cursory research will show you that nullification had been and was practiced at the time our Constitution was written and it's framers insured we retained this power by choosing not to ban or limit it in any way.
By purposely not banning or restricting nullification they empowered us with it.
As has been noted, a Judge who suspects a juror of using jury nullification (and this was the context in which I was discussing it, Neal, not the act of an entire jury returning a verdict that is clearly in opposition to the evidence presented).
It's important to note that a judge's ability to strike a juror who he suspects may exercise nullification powers is a very recent development in our history. You seem to be aware of this, as the only precedent you could find to cite was a Second Circuit Court's ruling in 1997, but it's interesting that you chose to ignore the fact that this ruling avoided even the mention of banning nullification itself. It's because they know that to do so would be unconstitutional.
Several here seem to believe that JN is such a wonderful tool! However, we have only to look at how some (e.g., Klansmen in the 1940s-50s) were acquitted for obviously heinous crimes to understand how such a tool can and has been used for evil. Did the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" teach you nothing about the abuse of jury nullification? That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
I've already more than one cited example of it's correct and constructive use to abolish unjust laws. This IS in fact a wonderful ability the citizens of this country have.
The idea is that a jury made up of the common people is only seated for a short time and is therefore less susceptible to be corrupted as could an established judiciary. The people having the ability to rule against unjust laws while sitting on a jury is a valuable tool in keeping us free from a tyrannical government - and that's not just tin foil hat talk.
Pay attention and you'll see that state criminal court examples such as you cite are remedied by charging these people with civil rights violations under federal laws.
Goodnight, sheeple.
Your use of the term 'sheeple' in reference to persons wishing to utilize jury nullification powers makes no sense. Failure to be aware of or acknowledge the existence of the right and duty of jurors to consider justice of the law itself and instead simply following what you're ordered to do more accurately makes you the sheeple.
Free men know their constitutional rights and exercise them as necessary.
as a selected juror it is your calling to serve..not run or make excuses..a mans future is in your hands,and he has constitutional rights..you have to uphold them for him, the courts damn shure won't[;)][V]
I was called and in the jury pool for a case when someone didn't show up for jury duty. They placed a call to her home and to her place of employment. She refused to appear and her boss ( another lady) told the clerk that called she was needed at work and was not available for jury duty. The judge issued a warrant and they were both (the lady and her boss) in front of him in about 20 minutes. One of the funniest things I ever seen.
The case was pleaded out and a jury wasn't even seated. But both of these ladies went to jail until the judge dealt with them later that day.
I don't look forward to jury duty, but feel it is my duty as a citizen to perform it, for both the state and the accused.
Wow, you are quite full of yourself. The tone of your posts are beginning to show that you really do like to hear yourself speak.
quote:
originally posted by Indy_Kid
That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Not always the case. There has been the need for this in the past an may be a greater need in the future with government growing so quickly and vastly overreaching into our personal liberties.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order".
Have to agree with Txs on this one. 15 years for an Amendment to our founding document, that is PDQ.
Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of (fixed it for ya) or not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors.
What about your responsibility to the citizens of the United States? I recall an article where a no-knock was served on a co-op. Women and children held at gunpoint by a SWAT team. Charged with selling veggies without a license. Is that a law you like to see dropped on the head of some poor hippie chick with 6 kids that is just trying to make a small living, home school her kids and live her life in this great, free country? If that case made it to court and I was on the jury, despite ANY evidence that they broke a valid law on the books, I would vote NG.
However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Personal attacks?! Really, you would stoop so low. We are aghast!
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in".
You have completely lost me here cowboy. My son, while definitely a genius, is merely 2 yrs old. Even if he is accepted, I want him to attend Kindergarten here before moving out. Please check my posts again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I was not correcting your grammar, just the post itself.
Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue.
we know, Grand Master of rocket science. We really do feel unworthy and thank you for correcting our every mistype and grammatical error.
Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors.
Please try to read a post before you point out errors and then flame someone for correcting your erroneous finger-pointing. I read every word you posted.
And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple.
Sheeple: People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny (wikitionary.org)
We are not blindly following. therefor we are not sheeple. You, on the other hand, are content to believe that the hippie chick should serve 5 - 10 and her kids remanded to foster care because she failed to pull a permit to sell tomatoes.
The coming years of government intrusion, jack-booting, and quietly revoking personal freedoms guaranteed under our founding documents will separate the men from the sheeple.
I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
I guess reporting your neighbor who still owns a semi-automatic weapon to the Obama youth after they have all been collected would not be a tough choice for you either. You are showing your stripes wool.
Comments
I have been called three times and served three times. I guess they really do like uneducated people. Of course try telling that to the Lawyer, the doctor, the College Professor and the Business owner that also served with me. Don
Maybe they wanted someone that was "nuts" to add to the diversity?
We are talking about the government violation of constitutional rights.
Do you believe that such laws would make it on the books and NOT be challenged as unconstitutional? What laws would those be? Please show me a case where the government is clearly violating someone's constitutional rights.
I'd prefer the Appellate System handle such issues than Joe Patriot. As I noted, Joe will achieve nothing but a mistrial and a new jury. Eventually, they'll get 12 to agree.
The Appellate System is there to overturn rulings based on laws that are deemed unconstitutional. That's what happened in Washington DC with personal ownership of guns! The Appellate System did its job and ruled that Washington was violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens.
It was the duty of the citizens of Washington DC to see that such a law never got on the books, but they failed in their duty, didn't they?
Though uncostitutional, we were saddled with the 18th Amendment. Do a bit of research and you'll see that widespread jury nullification was a major factor in it's repeal.
Our founding fathers empowered us with jury nullification to insure that power ultimately remained with the citizens, not simply left up to a judiciary that may become corrupted.
Gonna cost me $10 a day to park (they do not validate parking for jurors from what I hear) and even if I bring my own lunch I am still "paying" for the privilege it would seem.
Now, as i said, I fully intend to go down there and do my duty. I am still going to * because it will be typical government run operation with lots of wasted time and frustration run by disgruntled government employees that have been there too long to be fired unless they kill someone and leave the body in the lobby for too long.
If I actually get on a case and can do some service to community it will be worth it. Give me a chance to read a book or two.
Using my vacation days for a real vacation. I'll just suck it up on this one as I refuse to let this be my only days away from the office.
I may take my laptop and give you a hour by hour update if I get too bored. no since not sharing the "fun" [:D]
I would be very surprised if they don't validate parking. I've been on jury duty at five different courthouses & they all had free parking. In Riverside your jury badge even got you free transit on the local buses.
Because most people can not afford to lose money from work to make $12.50/day. They need to up the jury duty pay to $50/day and that would help compensate people better.
Jury nullification is a tool I hope is never used. They way large government is pushing to relieve us of individual rights "for our own good" I am predicting it will grow in popularity.
good day
Wife (killer of snakes) was on a jury trial for a rape.
I feel its your civic duty to sit on a jury if called. Think its an insult by paying people $8 or $15 dollars a day for jury duty and not include a meal. Thats adding injury to insult.
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009; Page B01
After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In the 2006 incident, Cpl. Melroy H. Cort, 24, and his wife, Samantha, were en route from their home in Columbus, Ohio, to Walter Reed. Cort's legs had been amputated above the knees when he was wounded by a makeshift bomb in Ramadi during his third tour of duty in Iraq.
The couple's car got a flat tire, forcing them to pull over at a car repair shop in the 5000 block of Georgia Avenue NW. While there, Cort said, he reached into the glove compartment, removed a 9mm pistol and put it in his jacket pocket.
A witness who noticed Cort handling the gun called police, who arrested and handcuffed Cort while he was sitting in his wheelchair. He was charged with three counts of carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of ammunition. He spent the night in the D.C. jail before returning to Walter Reed.
He was assigned a public defender, who encouraged him to plead guilty. But Cort refused, because a felony on his record could cost him his military benefits. So he decided to represent himself.
"I had to fight for myself," he said yesterday. "I wasn't going to plead guilty and lose everything."
During his trial, which began Friday before Judge Lynn Leibovitz, the two arresting officers testified that Cort had thrown up his hands and told them he had a gun in his pocket when they approached him.
Taking the stand in his defense, Cort tried to tell his personal story: How he enlisted in the Marines in 2004 after graduating from Ohio's Wright State University with a business degree. How he went to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, when he was was critically injured. How he was fitted with prosthetic legs and honorably discharged in 2007.
But Leibovitz ordered him to discuss only the case at hand.
Cort, who said he had a permit to carry the gun in Ohio, said he had it with him because he had moved out of his house in anticipation of an extended stay at Walter Reed.
He said his commanding officer had advised him to take the gun to the armory on Walter Reed's base as soon as he arrived.
Cort said 12 rounds of ammunition were in his car trunk, but police said the ammunition was in the gun's clip.
Although acquitting him of the gun charges, the jury found Cort guilty of possessing ammunition, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to time already spent in the D.C. jail.
Cort, his wife and their 3-month-old daughter, Charlott, now plan to drive home to Columbus, where Samantha Cort is in real estate. Cort said he plans to appeal the verdict and tend to his family.
"I just plan to take care of my daughter," Cort said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302840.html
01/29/2009, 2:46 pm
Print this story | Email this story
Dan Churney, danc@mywebtimes.com, 815-431-4050
On Wednesday in La Salle County Circuit Court, several jurors shook hands with an emotional Loren J. Swift after finding him not guilty of a marijuana charge that would have sent him to prison.
"I'm so relieved. I've got my life back. I'm so grateful," a teary Swift told reporters outside the courtroom."I'm going to dedicate my life to doing what's right," which he explained meant he was going to get himself reinstated in the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The five-woman, seven-man jury deliberated about two hours, giving the verdict at 1:30 p.m. The 59-year-old Swift, of rural Streator, was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The state police drug task force arrested him Oct. 26, 2007, at his home, saying they found 25 pounds of marijuana and 50 pounds of marijuana plants. He spent 49 days in custody before posting $10,000 bond. His record included a conviction in 2003 for possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Jurors were chosen Monday and testimony began Tuesday, with Circuit Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr. presiding. In the courthouse lobby, after the verdict, two male jurors talked and laughed with Swift and his attorney, Randy Gordon; one of the jurors patted Swift on his back. However, one of these jurors refused to admit he was a juror when The Times approached him for comment about the verdict; the other juror didn't deny he was indeed a juror, but nevertheless refused to talk.
Gordon told reporters he believed a key portion of testimony that favored his client was from a prosecution chemist, who didn't know how much of the plants seized could be smoked, with Gordon noting the stalk and sterile seeds of a marijuana plant are not illegal. Gordon, of Morris, was a La Salle County prosecutor for several years in the 1990s.
During the trial, Swift testified he smoked marijuana to relieve physical pain, as well as to cope with posttraumatic stress syndrome. Swift served aboard an aircraft carrier for 10 months in 1970 off shore of Vietnam during the conflict there, involved with the landing and launching of helicopters. He also flew helicopter missions to Vietnam to deliver supplies.
Swift denied he sold marijuana, as Prosecutor Pete Siena alleged.
Jurors interrupted their deliberations at one point, to re-enter the courtroom and look at evidence, including containers of marijuana, scales and a heat vacuum sealer that were set in the middle of the courtroom. They then returned to the jury room, delivering the verdict shortly after. Police and the prosecutor alleged the scales and sealer showed Swift packaged marijuana for sale, but admitted they found no records, small plastic bags or phone numbers that also would have suggested Swift sold the drug.
Police testified that after they went to Swift's home in 2007, Swift invited them inside his house, leading them through rooms where he had marijuana, including a cedar-lined room Swift used for drying marijuana. He also showed them a garden overgrown with weeds, in which marijuana plants were hidden.
State's Attorney Brian Towne said the seized marijuana and plants would be taken to a state facility, where drugs seized by police anywhere in Illinois are burned. He added police had seized 80 pounds of marijuana from Swift, but the state laboratory only had time to process 25 pounds as evidence.
Swift wore a suit and tie during his trial, as he did at almost every previous court hearing. At recent hearings and at trial, he walked hunched, used a cane and wore a medical-style boot on his right foot.
One of the male jurors who congratulated Swift in the lobby, also used a cane, having an artificial leg. After the trial, a courthouse security officer found this juror had carried a cell phone into the courtroom inside the leg, although cell phones are prohibited in courtrooms.
A couple of courthouse observers speculated after the verdict that jurors had engaged in "jury nullification," meaning jurors believed Swift was guilty, but did not believe he deserved punishment, so voted not guilty.
After a reporter asked Gordon if he believed jurors ruled for Swift out of sympathy, Gordon said they should have ruled for Swift, because Swift was not guilty.
http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=374236
quote:Originally posted by drobs
You may be the lone hope to protect Joe Patriot from life in the gulag.
This is known as "jury nullification", and is sometimes used by minorities because they feel THE SYSTEM is unfairly biased against minorities.
Your method would result in a hung jury, a mistrial, and another go-around with a new jury.
It's NOT your duty as a juror to interpret the law as you see fit. If the law says "no guns", and Joe Patriot is caught with a gun, your duty is to enforce the law. Joe goes to jail.
blah blah blah
Ignoring the law for the way you think things should be is not the duty of a juror. If you're not happy with the law, work to have it changed.
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
You're forgetting a well known example.
Though uncostitutional, we were saddled with the 18th Amendment.
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.
So, the 18th Amendment WAS constitutional, and supported by a large majority of the populace at the time. Forget about the 2/3 required for an Amendment to become law? Everyone THOUGHT it was an answer to a problem, but they forgot you can't legislate morality. After 11 years (IIRC), they wised up and passed the 21st to repeal it. Again, a 2/3 majority of states required for it to pass (so much for the Equal Rights Amendment, huh, guys?)
I find it funny/tragic that BaseJumper thought it "sad" when minorities "abused" jury nullification, but he thought it would be just fine if HE did it for any "unconstitutional" laws. Isn't that just as sad, or does BJ live a double-standard?
As for the 2 posts by "drobs", those are NOT examples of jury nullification, since the jury was UNANIMOUS in its decision. THAT is the answer you're looking for, BJ, not the irrational, random nullification of a standing law that YOU don't happen to like.
Still looking for my answers, BJ.
Sat on a jury for a murder trial years ago. That was very interesting. Employer paid my regular salary but I had to hand over my jury pay to my employer, think it came to $36.00 or so.
Wife (killer of snakes) was on a jury trial for a rape.
I feel its your civic duty to sit on a jury if called. Think its an insult by paying people $8 or $15 dollars a day for jury duty and not include a meal. Thats adding injury to insult.
On a Federal case we did get meals at lunch time after we started deliberations. They kept us all together & we had to walk from the Federal courthouse to Chinatown in L.A.
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
Does not just have to be a standing law. Can be an illegal prosecution. Those two border agents got a pardon, but should never have done the time they served. The jurors were obviously playing by the rules you espouse. That would have been a good place for jury nullification.
There was a story of a man waking up to the sounds of crashing in his house. police were serving a no knock warrant. He killed one thinking it was a burglar. When they announced "Police" he laid down his weapon and complied. He was charged (not sure if he was convicted) of manslaughter. IIRC the police had the wrong house. wrong place wrong time, the home owner pays the price for defending himself? Another good place for the jury to nullify even any illegal gun charges (not sure if there even were any and it's too late to google it).
So, IK, if you were just shortening my handle to attempt a slight, you can just call me Neal. leave the childishness, Mr Kid, in your playroom. Just like many of the liberties we have, they can be abused. Sad, but true. Would you rather not have them? Would you rather trust the government to "look out for your best interests"? They would never do anything to hurt you since you are such a law abiding citizen and all. Right? As sad as it is to watch We the People pay for the upkeep of undeniably guilty and disgusting killers on death row, the system is not perfect and they deserve the chance to appeal so that we can protect the innocent that may have been framed, railroaded or mistakenly identified and ended up there being innocent of any crime.
If you still hold to the fantasy that our forthright elected officials would never let anything happen to the good guys, then enjoy your life with the rest of the sheep. Many of us will not line up quietly for the shearing.
EDIT: Indy Kid, you really should break out the Webster's and look up Jury Nullification.
quote:Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law-that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge-which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is-but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.
I can't, drobs can't, no one can, practice jury nullification alone. It has to be a group effort. Go ahead, read it, it's okay. You are young, we understand. go back to your Warcraft game and let the adults handle the big decisions.
I don't understand why supposedly flag-waiving "true" Americans try to wriggle, squirm and lie to get out of jury duty.
Because most people can not afford to lose money from work to make $12.50/day. They need to up the jury duty pay to $50/day and that would help compensate people better.
Freedom isn't free.
Your answer to what Indy? An example of an unconstitutional law? Do you believe that our government has our best interests at heart and will "not let an unconstitutional law get on the books"? You are naive, and may well be a "kid".
Does not just have to be a standing law. Can be an illegal prosecution. Those two border agents got a pardon, but should never have done the time they served. The jurors were obviously playing by the rules you espouse. That would have been a good place for jury nullification.
There was a story of a man waking up to the sounds of crashing in his house. police were serving a no knock warrant. He killed one thinking it was a burglar. When they announced "Police" he laid down his weapon and complied. He was charged (not sure if he was convicted) of manslaughter. IIRC the police had the wrong house. wrong place wrong time, the home owner pays the price for defending himself? Another good place for the jury to nullify even any illegal gun charges (not sure if there even were any and it's too late to google it).
So, IK, if you were just shortening my handle to attempt a slight, you can just call me Neal. leave the childishness, Mr Kid, in your playroom. Just like many of the liberties we have, they can be abused. Sad, but true. Would you rather not have them? Would you rather trust the government to "look out for your best interests"? They would never do anything to hurt you since you are such a law abiding citizen and all. Right? As sad as it is to watch We the People pay for the upkeep of undeniably guilty and disgusting killers on death row, the system is not perfect and they deserve the chance to appeal so that we can protect the innocent that may have been framed, railroaded or mistakenly identified and ended up there being innocent of any crime.
If you still hold to the fantasy that our forthright elected officials would never let anything happen to the good guys, then enjoy your life with the rest of the sheep. Many of us will not line up quietly for the shearing.
EDIT: Indy Kid, you really should break out the Webster's and look up Jury Nullification.
quote:Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law-that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge-which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is-but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.
I can't, drobs can't, no one can, practice jury nullification alone. It has to be a group effort. Go ahead, read it, it's okay. You are young, we understand. go back to your Warcraft game and let the adults handle the big decisions.
Well, Neal, I was tired of writing "BaseJumper" all the time. If I were to slight you, it would be obvious.
It's so nice that you think Wiki is a reliable source of information. Why did you lie to everyone about the supposed Webster's definition of "jury nullification", when you simply copied and pasted the Wiki reference? That definition came from Microsoft Encarta, by the way.
It would also be nice if you included the ENTIRE entry! You left out this part, which was farther down the entry:
"In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)"
Therefore, if a SINGLE juror appears to be in the process of acting against the letter of the law, or instructions given to them by the Judge, they can be removed.
Once again, the result would be:
a) The jury convicts, once an alternate is seated and a new vote is taken;
b) The Judge declares a mistrial, a new trial is ordered with a new jury.
As for "illegal prosecutions", I included the name "Nifong". Did you NOT look into that before posting? Let me make it easy for you. He the dim-wit DA who tried to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse team for an alleged rape, that, in fact, never happened. He was eventually disbarred by the NC State Bar Association for his illegal actions. He did, in fact, serve 1 day in jail for contempt of court, based on his misconduct during the entire affair.
It's sad how you and drobs seem to think that I lack the capacity for rational thought, and how you go about insinuating all sorts of behaviors for which you have absolutely no evidence. All of your claims about what I may or may not believe should be left out of your posts, since it is simply baseless grand-standing, and childish name-calling. If you wish to read how I feel about some of these issues, then read my post about the "What If" - that is, what would I change if I had the ability to do so. I'm sure it would enlighten you greatly about my position on many issues.
I'll leave the thread now, as you've taken the matter far off-track and turned it into a personal attack against me and what I may or may not believe. Have the maturity to leave the name-calling off the board. You go battle your squirrels instead.
Sincerely,
David
PS: Tell your kid to have fun at Illinois. When I attended Purdue in the Nuclear Engineering program, the Big Ten football games were always a good time. Even had a picture of the guys on my dorm floor, including all the underage, sharing a beer from our pony keg with the PRESIDENT of Purdue at that time! He knew there were times when the rules should be followed, and when they could (and should) be ignored! Guess that made it "Presidential Nullification"!
If the jury, as a whole, seeks to nullify (as they did for many prohibition cases and in the one mentioned above by drobs) they would just come back with a "Not Guilty" verdict. That is the whole point.
There is no mistrial, an injustice has not been served thanks to "We the People" despite evidence that might show the defendant guilty in the eyes of the government. There is no new trial.
I never said you lacked the capacity for rational thought. You seem to be able to demonstrate that for yourself by accusing me of things I have not said. I made no personal attacks against you. You are mistaken.
In the Duke case you mentioned, there was one DA that grossly overstepped his authority. I am glad the other people involved in the case saw fit to stand him down and take action. That may not always happen. Jury nullification is a tool "We the People" have at our disposal to ensure the power of the judiciary does not overstep its limits.
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
I just re-read all my posts, and I did personally attack you on my post at 3am this morning. I apologize for saying I did not.
Everything else stands.
Oh, and I think you must have confused me with another member as I don't have any children in Illinois or attending Perdue.
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Bullshiite, you job as an American citizen, gun owner, and a person that believes in the constitution is to protect your fellow citizens from unjust laws and government tyranny. As a juror you can do that. Your job is to sway the other on the jury to your point of view. The goal is to get the whole jury to vote not guilty.
If you are so mindless that you believe the law is the law and you would rather see someone go to prison over an injustice, then I feel sorry for you. You obviously can not make moral ethical decisions in your life.
You are a sheep.
Wrong on ALL counts, drobs. A single juror has NO RIGHT to override what is clearly a legitimate law. You CANNOT pick and choose the laws that YOU will enforce, and BJ will pick the laws HE'LL enforce, and I'll pick the laws I'LL enforce, via nullification. That's NOT how the system works.
So, you believe, even though you've never met me and don't know me from BJ, that I lack any ability to make a moral or ethical decision? Who the hell are you? Oh, right. You're the guy who ALWAYS knows right from wrong, no matter what the situation. You can pick out the criminal in any crowd, right! Yeah, you'd be perfect for a jury! "He's not guilty, your Honor! He's an Merican GUn Onwer, and that makes him OKEY-DOKEY in mah book! Lettum go!"
Go back to your previous posts, learn the difference between 12 people AGREEING on a SINGLE issue and ONE PERSON ACTING ALONE, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER ELEVEN, then get back to me.
Also, at NO time did I say that I would allow someone to go to prison over an injustice. However, the examples provided by BJ were not LEGITIMATE examples! Show me some REAL cases where the DA is acting in violation of the Constitution, and I'll show you a DA in serious trouble. The name "Nifong" mean anything to you???
Anyone who follows blindly, whatever the cause, is one of the sheep, drobs. That would include a large number of lifetime NRA members who think anyone accused of a firearms violation is a "victim".
I'll leave you two to wallow in your self-righteousness. Never wrong, are you? Even when you pull BS examples out of your posterior to illustrate the wrong example, you're still on the side of the "innocent", whomever they may be. You seem to know them on sight! Must come in handy. I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. I may not be happy with it, but I'm sure as hell not happy with the likes of you deciding on an individual basis what laws will or will not be enforced. That's anarchy.
You are so wrong and ignorant on this subject that's it's not even funny! Do some research on the topic before trying to discuss it...and after that come back and apologize...save some face.
I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. There it is.
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
Welcome to the U.S.
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
Well, despite my previous statement that I would leave this thread, misinformation requires me to respond to some others who feel they know more than anyone else on this matter.
"Txs" seems to possess the ability to know the intent of the Founding Fathers by proclaiming, "Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens." On what do you base this ability to know their intent?
He also states the the 18th was, "repealed in short order", when in fact, the 18th was ratified on Jan. 29, 1919, and its repeal with the 21st occurred on Dec. 5th, 1933. I don't think anyone can logically consider almost 15 years to be "in short order". That's almost a full generation under the rule of the 18th.
Txs, our Founding Fathers never "empowered us" with the notion of jury nullification. I doubt you'd find any reference to it before the middle of the last century, when civil disobedience became a tool that the oppressed could use to fight injustice. As has been noted, a Judge who suspects a juror of using jury nullification (and this was the context in which I was discussing it, Neal, not the act of an entire jury returning a verdict that is clearly in opposition to the evidence presented). Several here seem to believe that JN is such a wonderful tool! However, we have only to look at how some (e.g., Klansmen in the 1940s-50s) were acquitted for obviously heinous crimes to understand how such a tool can and has been used for evil. Did the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" teach you nothing about the abuse of jury nullification? That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order". Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors. However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in". Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue. Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors. And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple. I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
Once again, let me refer to the following: "In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)". So, yes, intent to violate the juror's oath by jury nullification (of the single juror, not the entire jury), is grounds for having that juror removed. And I suspect the Judge wouldn't look kindly on your actions! You might find yourself in contempt of court and behind bars for trying it!
quote:As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Juries vote to convict even when there is reasonable doubt; happens all the time. So, even though a determination could not be made, juries have gone ahead and voted to convict. Are you so naive to believe otherwise?
Furthermore, the statement, "...you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do." is truly frightening. As I noted previously, a person could use this "power" to vote not guilty for a person accused of possession of child porn! Your "power" has the capacity to do as much evil as good. That is why it is a "power" that should never be considered by a juror.
quote:Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
Welcome to the U.S.
The role of the juror is not to ascertain the "correctness" of the charge. Their role is to determine if the prosecution has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant(s) is or is not guilty as charged. Nothing more, nothing less, whether you agree with the charge or not.
The less one messes around with the legal system, the better off everyone will be.
[Once again, let me refer to the following: "In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)". So, yes, intent to violate the juror's oath by jury nullification (of the single juror, not the entire jury), is grounds for having that juror removed. And I suspect the Judge wouldn't look kindly on your actions! You might find yourself in contempt of court and behind bars for trying it!You need to move beyond Wikipedia to obtain a firm grasp of this subject.
You're indicating a belief that a juror in the U.S. can be jailed simply because they returned a particular verdict or voted a particular way. Think that one over carefully.
Our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was probably on a first name basis with the framers of our Constitution, is famously quoted as saying, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Due to what he'd observed in his lifetime he well understood that power can be subverted by a judiciary and stood firmly that in a court of law it should ultimately be in the hands of the people.
You see it as a bad thing that mere citizens could ignore laws through nullification powers, but don't seem to understand the good that's come from this. To give a very well known example, do you recall from high school history class how northern juries refused to convict people for harboring slaves in violation of standing laws because they felt they were unjust? These widespread jury nullification were a major contributor to forcing our government to abolish slavery and all laws supporting it.
We're seeing it in modern times in everything from assisted suicide cases to refusal to convict in medicinal marijuana cases. Notice no jurors are being thrown in jail for these.
Nullification has been used throughout our nation's history, but in modern times our government has become power mad and has made efforts to stymie the exercise of this right, but cannot outright abolish it. As it currently stands a Circuit Court has ruled that a juror can be removed from the panel if it becomes known their prior intention is to nullify, but if a juror actually exercises this right the verdict stands with no repercussions because they've done nothing illegal.
As our founding fathers clearly saw it, the refusal to enforce unjust laws by a juror is not only a right - it's a duty.
quote:Originally posted by ECC
I, on the other hand, am bound, by the Oath I took as a juror, to obey the law, whatever it may say at that time. There it is.
The problem is you're under the assumption you only have to follow laws the presiding judge tells you about. The power of jury nullification is and has always been within the law in this country and is in no way a violation of your juror's oath.
As a juror you can't convict unless you determine the statute contained within the charge to the jury has been violated, but you hold the power to vote not guilty even if you do.
Simply because you're opposed to such doesn't mean it's not completely lawful and correct for a juror to vote using judgement of the charge itself.
Welcome to the U.S.
Your post makes it look as if I made this comment...and that is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by indy_kid
Sorry, but there's NOTHING unconstitutional about abolishing alcohol. Never mentioned in the Constitution, and State's Rights don't come into play due to interstate commerce and all that.The 18th Amendment stated the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The federal government went far beyond regulating interstate commerce and overstepped it's powers explicitly stated in the constitution. Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens.
As for your claim that it was, 'supported by a large majority of the populace', you're so far off the mark as to be comical. The Volstead Act and 18th Amendment were the products of a particular special interest group leaning on legislators to regulate the private conduct of their fellow citizens. This was quickly apparent, as they became the most widely ignored laws to ever come out of Washington DC. During this period, even normally law abiding citizens - including respected community leaders, law enforcement officials and politicians - violated our nation's Constitution on a regular basis without denial.
If you examine the facts you'll find that jury nullification of cases involving violations soon became widespread and were a large contributor to this Amendment's repeal.
In spite of what you might believe, an Amendment so publicly ridiculed and openly ignored by juries that it was repealed in short order was obviously not supported by a majority of the population, instead only passed by a majority of their elected representatives to appease a relatively small segment of our populace.
This was an excellent example of why jury nullification should exist. It was created by our founders as a last ditch measure to insure power ulimately rests in the hands of our people instead of a runaway judiciary.
Well, despite my previous statement that I would leave this thread, misinformation requires me to respond to some others who feel they know more than anyone else on this matter.
"Txs" seems to possess the ability to know the intent of the Founding Fathers by proclaiming, "Our founders never intended anything in our Constitution to restrict the private conduct of our citizens." On what do you base this ability to know their intent?
He also states the the 18th was, "repealed in short order", when in fact, the 18th was ratified on Jan. 29, 1919, and its repeal with the 21st occurred on Dec. 5th, 1933. I don't think anyone can logically consider almost 15 years to be "in short order". That's almost a full generation under the rule of the 18th.
Txs, our Founding Fathers never "empowered us" with the notion of jury nullification. I doubt you'd find any reference to it before the middle of the last century, when civil disobedience became a tool that the oppressed could use to fight injustice. As has been noted, a Judge who suspects a juror of using jury nullification (and this was the context in which I was discussing it, Neal, not the act of an entire jury returning a verdict that is clearly in opposition to the evidence presented). Several here seem to believe that JN is such a wonderful tool! However, we have only to look at how some (e.g., Klansmen in the 1940s-50s) were acquitted for obviously heinous crimes to understand how such a tool can and has been used for evil. Did the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" teach you nothing about the abuse of jury nullification? That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order". Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors. However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in". Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue. Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors. And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple. I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
Do a search right here on GB about the subject...you'll find that this has been discussed in depth here.
The case was pleaded out and a jury wasn't even seated. But both of these ladies went to jail until the judge dealt with them later that day.
I don't look forward to jury duty, but feel it is my duty as a citizen to perform it, for both the state and the accused.
quote:
originally posted by Indy_Kid
That is why a juror must abide by the rule of law, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Not always the case. There has been the need for this in the past an may be a greater need in the future with government growing so quickly and vastly overreaching into our personal liberties.
Now, we have "Eric" stepping into the fray, making accusations of ignorance on my part without specific examples! Yet I have shown examples of how the others have misunderstood the use of JN in our legal system, and what actually constitutes acting in "short order".
Have to agree with Txs on this one. 15 years for an Amendment to our founding document, that is PDQ.
Have you no admonitions for them, Eric, or am I the only one at fault? We'll soon see if you grasp a rhetorical question of (fixed it for ya) or not. My money is you won't.
I have experienced no loss of "face", Eric; it would appear that I'm the only person here willing to obey the orders given to a jury, willing to put aside my own views on the subject due to the oath I took before the start of the trial. Frankly, I am shocked at the willingness of some to violate their oaths as jurors.
What about your responsibility to the citizens of the United States? I recall an article where a no-knock was served on a co-op. Women and children held at gunpoint by a SWAT team. Charged with selling veggies without a license. Is that a law you like to see dropped on the head of some poor hippie chick with 6 kids that is just trying to make a small living, home school her kids and live her life in this great, free country? If that case made it to court and I was on the jury, despite ANY evidence that they broke a valid law on the books, I would vote NG.
However, if I looked at the pattern of marriages of those commenting herein, I'm sure I would find other violations of oaths, supposedly taken in good faith and in the name of God, that were also cast aside when they became inconvenient.
Personal attacks?! Really, you would stoop so low. We are aghast!
Finally, Neal, you indicated your son was off to college in Illinois soon, which is why I used "at" (assuming the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana) instead of "in".
You have completely lost me here cowboy. My son, while definitely a genius, is merely 2 yrs old. Even if he is accepted, I want him to attend Kindergarten here before moving out. Please check my posts again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I was not correcting your grammar, just the post itself.
Furthermore, I was the one who attended Purdue.
we know, Grand Master of rocket science. We really do feel unworthy and thank you for correcting our every mistype and grammatical error.
Please try a little harder to comprehend what I have written before you make additional errors.
Please try to read a post before you point out errors and then flame someone for correcting your erroneous finger-pointing. I read every word you posted.
And I agree with you; your mistakes and misconceptions still stand.
Goodnight, sheeple.
Sheeple: People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny (wikitionary.org)
We are not blindly following. therefor we are not sheeple. You, on the other hand, are content to believe that the hippie chick should serve 5 - 10 and her kids remanded to foster care because she failed to pull a permit to sell tomatoes.
The coming years of government intrusion, jack-booting, and quietly revoking personal freedoms guaranteed under our founding documents will separate the men from the sheeple.
I hope I never encounter anyone like yourselves while doing jury duty. Reporting you to the Judge wouldn't be any fun, but it would be the correct course of action if JN became apparent.
I guess reporting your neighbor who still owns a semi-automatic weapon to the Obama youth after they have all been collected would not be a tough choice for you either. You are showing your stripes wool.