Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/29/2002 12:22:46 PM EDT
Jurors' Handbook A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you know that you qualify for another, much more powerful vote than the one which you cast on election day? This opportunity comes when you are selected for jury duty, a position of honor for over 700 years. The principle of a Common Law Jury or Trial by the Country was first established on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede, England when King John signed the Magna Carta, or Great Charter of our Liberties. It created the basis for our Constitutional, system of Justice. JURY POWER in the system of checks and balances: In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials. This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws". In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule. When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained. Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY. That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:23:38 PM EDT
A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties: But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution? It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved. As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)) Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)). YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case. Because a jury's guilty decision must be unanimous, it takes only one vote to effectively nullify a bad "act of the legislature". Your one vote can "hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal, at least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an unjust or unconstitutional law.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:24:13 PM EDT
The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without your consent! If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime; for no man is bound to obey an unjust command. In other words, if the defendant has disobeyed some man-made criminal statute, and the statute is unjust, the defendant has in substance, committed no crime. Jurors, having ruled then on the justice of the law involved and finding it opposed in whole or in part to their own natural concept of what is basically right, are bound to hold for the acquittal of said defendant. It is your responsibility to insist that your vote of not guilty be respected by all other members of the jury. For you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as a qualified judge in your right to see that justice is done. Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be applied to you by any or all members of the jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your conscience and convictions, not those of someone else. So you see, as a juror, you are one of a panel of twelve judges with the responsibility of protecting all innocent Americans from unjust laws.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:24:47 PM EDT
Jurors Must Know Their Rights: You must know your rights! Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier): "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power". Look at that quote again. the court ruled jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told about it. It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so. Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on the surface? It may be, but the logic behind such a decision is plain enough. In our Constitutional Republic (note I didn't say democracy) the people have granted certain limited powers to government, preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should know what their rights are. They need not be told by the courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants. Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are! The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is absurd and contrary to historical fact and law. Are juries present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical acts of the government? We The People wrote the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Who better to decide the fairness of the laws, or whether the laws conform to the Constitution?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:26:07 PM EDT
Our Defense - Jury Power: Sometime in the future, you may be called upon to sit in judgment of a sincere individual being prosecuted (persecuted?) for trying to exercise his or her Rights, or trying to defend the Constitution. If so, remember that in 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately". You now understand how the average citizen can help keep in check the power of government and bring to a halt the enforcement of tyrannical laws. Unfortunately, very few people know or understand this power which they as Americans possess to nullify oppressive acts of the legislature. America, the Constitution and your individual rights are under attack! Will you defend them? READ THE CONSTITUTION, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! Remember, if you don't know what your Rights are, you haven't got any! Something to think about as you prepare to get "out of" jury duty. Wanna know why laws and judgements are insane? Insane people serve on juries. Smart people find a way to get "out of it."
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:27:39 PM EDT
This is why I usually post such short answers, because people like Steyr like to type more than I do. Bravo Steyr!!!![:D]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:28:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:33:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:38:25 PM EDT
[url=http://www.fija.org/juror-handbook.htm]link[/url]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:38:37 PM EDT
Good timing. I just received my summons last week. I'll be standing duty in a couple of weeks.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:38:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:42:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:46:10 PM EDT
i have been a prosecution witness in over 50 jury trials, and i can tell you one thing for certain. justice is relative. the attorney is a salesman and the prosecutor is a salesman, both are trying to sell their point to the jury. jurors need to keep in mind that they are not just getting the facts, but a VERSION of the facts.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:49:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:50:41 PM EDT
Fascintating Topic, and a couple of excellent replies by eswanson. Nice goin', guys.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:57:52 PM EDT
Some say OJ got off through jury nullification. That's hardly the outcome one would hope for.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 12:59:11 PM EDT
Hey Steyr, can you put something up about how at one time a jury of your peers meant you friends and people that knew you?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:01:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:08:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By mattja: Some say OJ got off through jury nullification. That's hardly the outcome one would hope for.
View Quote
Excellent example of jury nullification. I wish I would've thought of that. There you go, Steyr. Nullification in action.
View Quote
I KNEW about that example BEFORE I posted. Like guns, "rights" can be used for good or evil. This is why "we" gotta quit dodging jury duty. Right now only those unemployed Oprah watchers are serving. Bookmark this one: [url]http://www.erowid.org/freedom/jury_nullification/jury_nullification.shtml[/url]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:10:20 PM EDT
Unfortunately, in Illinois at least, you'd be committing the felony of perjury for doing what you suggest. I've picked a couple dozen juries, and during selection the judge always asks something like this- "Will you follow the law as it is given to you in the jury instructions, even if you do not agree with it?" In other words, we'll tell you what the law is, you decide the facts and apply them to the law that is given to you, and that's how you decide the case.
View Quote
Is it perjury if you have to answer a question whose answer you cannot know? Since the question concerns a future event ("[b]Will[/b] you..."), the potential juror cannot be certain what he will do. He might [b]intend[/b] to follow the law as it is given, but then might discover that the law, as presented, is ridiculous.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:16:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: And remember, it works both ways. If you're not going to follow the law as it's given, you could let people off no matter what the evidence. Or, you could [b]convict[/b] them no matter what the evidence.
View Quote
But juries in criminal cases have to reach a unanimous verdict to convict, don't they? So it would only take one "renegade" juror to prevent a conviction, but it would take twelve to cause one.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:18:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2002 1:22:23 PM EDT by eswanson]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:26:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: Is it perjury if you have to answer a question whose answer you cannot know? Since the question concerns a future event ("[b]Will[/b] you..."), the potential juror cannot be certain what he will do. He might [b]intend[/b] to follow the law as it is given, but then might discover that the law, as presented, is ridiculous.
View Quote
Excellent question. I've thought along these lines every year when I sign my tax return, basically giving self-incriminating evidence to which I've sworn to the IRS if they ever want to take me to court.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:28:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2002 1:29:23 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By eswanson: And Steyr, I understand your point. But if you say "we" need to stop avoiding jury duty, how do you know who "we" is? If you were facing criminal charges, how do you know if "your" people are on the jury? It's impossible to know. No juror is going to give you the AR15.com high-sign to let you know they're on your side. That's why it's important - for both sides, including the guy who's on trial - to have jurors who will follow the law. At least it's a known quantity.
View Quote
I know who "we" is. In fact several members of "we" can read my mind. For instance Jarhead_22 will know the instant I am up on charges and telepatically communicate this to all pertinent AR15.com members. Seriously, I just think it is a important topic for several reasons. It is good to know for a person who serves. It is good to be aware of it to prevent it's misuse, as in the OJ case. Unfortunately justice really doesn't exist and we often must fight fire with fire. Are worst enemies are well aware of this tactic. Us NOT being aware of it is pretty dangerous. I strongly feel this information is more useful than a SKS w/1000 rounds.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:35:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:40:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: Incidentally, on the topic of knowing who "we" is, shouldn't we have some sort of high-sign for just such an occasion? Like they used to have on Little Rascals? Please understand that while I am all for getting around or avoiding or obviating unjust laws, in my experience as a prosecutor the nullification thing often works in favor of those who least deserve it (a la O.J.). And, as mentioned above, a lot of times the jury isn't getting all the info. So what you have is a juror breaking the law (perjury) to help someone who most likely broke the law, based on less than all of the information about that person. Interesting that we're involved in this spirited discussion on the 10th anniversary of the L.A. riots.
View Quote
So long as the "enemy" will fight "By Any Means Necessary" we should be aware of those tactics. How many laws were broken ten years ago in LA by those doing "what was right?"
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 1:53:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:01:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: Do you mean by the white jury that acquitted the cops in the Rodney King beating? That's what sparked the riots. Now that's a good quesion - was that "not guilty" verdict based on the evidence, or was it jury nullification? I'd say based on the evidence. But it's a good example of what I was talking about with the jury not getting all the information, except in reverse. In that case, the people who were so outraged at the verdict were the ones without all the info - the ones whose total knowledge about the case came from watching the video clip over and over. The jurors, on the other hand, had more info, having watched more of the tape than the media showed and having heard from all the participants and witnesses.
View Quote
And after that didn't they have an un-constitutional double jeopardy trial?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:08:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:10:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: Sure seemed like it. Technically, though, the State and Federal governments are separate sovereigns, and can each try you for the same offense. Doesn't seem right, but there you go. It rarely comes up that they actually will prosecute you for the same offense at the same time, but in the rare case of public outrage, anything can happen. I personally thought that was bull$hit.
View Quote
Ahhhh yes, trial by mob rule.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:16:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2002 2:17:05 PM EDT by eswanson]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:28:13 PM EDT
Actually I was referring to those, mostly Koreans, who illegally (according to Kali law) took up arms to defend themselves during the riots.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:38:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Actually I was referring to those, mostly Koreans, who illegally (according to Kali law) took up arms to defend themselves during the riots.
View Quote
Were they prosecuted? From what I heard they did nothing wrong .
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 2:55:56 PM EDT
Eswanson, Here's a question from a fellow IL member (you gonna be at the BRC?): You have probably seen the "new" regulations for Chicago concerning "assault weapons" by the Police Superintendant. The law specifically mentions several firearms by name, and declares that they are "not intended to be used for lawful purposes" (or something to that effect). Let's say a Chicago resident was arrested and charged with violating the new regulations. He asks for a jury trial. His defense attorney then shows that he is an avid High Power shooter, winner of some competetions with his AR15 rifle. Could the jury then overturn the new regulations by agreeing that there is a lawful purpose for an AR15 rifle? What about a .50 caliber long range shooter? Thanks!! AFARR
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:20:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Actually I was referring to those, mostly Koreans, who illegally (according to Kali law) took up arms to defend themselves during the riots.
View Quote
Were they prosecuted? From what I heard they did nothing wrong .
View Quote
Anyone have an answer to this?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:21:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: Were they prosecuted? From what I heard they did nothing wrong .
View Quote
[url]http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2725[/url] When Order Breaks Down by Robert A. Waters October 22, 2001 After September 11, many Americans rushed into gun shops to arm themselves. According to a recent Associated Press article, for example, the state of Florida Division of Licensing saw "a three-fold increase in gun permit applications in September." Other state licensing boards reported similar buying patterns. Why? Are citizens arming themselves for an invasion? Or is it something more basic, like being prepared in case the social order disintegrates? A real-life scenario of a breakdown in the fabric of society occurred nearly ten years ago. The Los Angeles riots began on April 29, 1992, almost immediately after four police officers were acquitted of numerous charges in the Rodney King beating. When National Guard troops finally moved in three days later, fifty-three people had died, thousands had been injured, and one billion dollars in damages had been reported. But one of the under-reported stories was of a group of citizens who were not injured or killed. As the city burned, movie stars fled and politicians buried their heads in the sand, hoping the crisis would go away. Many middle-class citizens, watching the carnage on their television sets, rushed to gun shops to purchase firearms. (They quickly learned that because of a 15-day waiting period, their own government had made it impossible for them to protect themselves.) The law-abiding poor had little hope--as the riots became more widespread and violent, Chief Daryl Gates ordered the cops to retreat. Calls for help came in to 911 by the hundreds. But citizens were informed that no assistance was available. Order had broken down. People were on their own. On the streets, law-abiding citizens were being beaten, robbed, and murdered in an orgy of rage. Much of the violence was racially motivated, as exemplified by the brutal attack on Reginald Denny. While cameras rolled, the white truck driver was dragged from the cab of his big-rig and beaten senseless. He was saved only after a small group of courageous blacks defied the mob and rushed him to a hospital.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:22:02 PM EDT
Meanwhile, the fury of the black rioters turned on Korean business owners. Only a few days before, a Korean shopkeeper had shot and killed a black woman whom he claimed was shoplifting. The anger of the black community was still smoldering when the officers were acquitted. The Koreans, known to be hard-working entrepreneurs, were caught in the middle. Now that the cops were no longer around, their businesses were being systematically looted. Anyone who dared stand up to the mob was killed. During the second day of the riots, many Koreans armed themselves and stood guard over their stores. They quickly formed teams to patrol "Korea-town" and used semi-automatic weapons (now banned) to protect themselves and their businesses. On March 31, 1995, David Joo, owner of a gun shop in LA, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. He'd been on the front lines of the war against order. "That night," he said, "I stood on the roof of the Lucky Electronics [store] across the street from our gun shop, along with several other neighbors. I had a 12-guage riot shotgun and a Beretta 92F pistol. Another employee had a Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle. We called the police for help, but they never came. Some looters tried to break down the door of the gun store, but we fired warning shots that drove them away. This happened many times, and before it was over, we fired 200 rounds of ammunition." After stark testimony about the terrors of the two nights he stood guard over his shop, Joo summed it up. "The police couldn't protect us," he said. "For whatever reason, they weren't there when we needed them the most. The gun control laws couldn't protect us either. All the gun control laws did was keep other law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves...[But] when law and order breaks down, citizens have a right to protect themselves." In the end, there were sections of Los Angeles where only Korean businesses survived the looting and burning. And many Koreans were still alive because they had the fire-power needed to stop the mob. Back to September 11, 2001. Americans quickly sensed that something had changed. They understood that the security they thought they'd bought with outrageous taxes was only a mirage. Even those who had never thought of owning a gun began to rethink their positions. As the owner of a Florida gun shop said, "People who were against guns or were against keeping guns in their homes, those are the people coming in..." Like those who used firearms to guard the tent cities after Hurricane Andrew, many liberals now saw a need for the guns they would have banned a few days before. Like the Korean business owners in Los Angeles, they looked toward a primitive instinct, self-protection, and found the shallow, jingoistic phrases of political correctness wanting. All of a sudden, after seeing America on fire and helpless politicians running for cover, liberals took a hit from a dose of reality. Their need for self-protection just became up close and personal.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:27:31 PM EDT
Thanks. I did not see anything that said they broke the law then. If it happened tomorrow that might be a different case.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:30:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: Thanks. I did not see anything that said they broke the law then. If it happened tomorrow that might be a different case.
View Quote
They actually broke several laws, bradishing of firearms, firing within city limits, etc. And every one of them violated the "attempt to flee" requirements of Kali self defense laws. I am unsure of any that were prosecuted. I'm sure the Koreans fell back on the "we all look alike" defense if prosecuters tried to identify individuals for arrest. Koreans are pretty smart.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:32:56 PM EDT
Interesting topic. I had been thinking about starting a thread with a similar topic (if you're a juror in a trial on the AW ban, would you acquit, even if the law was indeed violated). I remembered hearing somewhere that the jury is authorized to acquit if the law that the defendant is being tried upon is unjust. Is anyone really suprised that Judges and other government officals actively suppress knowledge of this? After all, we can't have the people judging the idiotic laws that we stuff down their throats in order to make ourselves more powerful.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:36:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mace: Interesting topic. I had been thinking about starting a thread with a similar topic (if you're a juror in a trial on the AW ban, would you acquit, even if the law was indeed violated). I remembered hearing somewhere that the jury is authorized to acquit if the law that the defendant is being tried upon is unjust. Is anyone really suprised that Judges and other government officals actively suppress knowledge of this? After all, we can't have the people judging the idiotic laws that we stuff down their throats in order to make ourselves more powerful.
View Quote
That is what Benjamin Franklin meant whn he said we gave you the jury to correct wrongs done to you by the government.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:40:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ar10er: Thanks. I did not see anything that said they broke the law then. If it happened tomorrow that might be a different case.
View Quote
They actually broke several laws, bradishing of firearms, firing within city limits, etc. And every one of them violated the "attempt to flee" requirements of Kali self defense laws. I am unsure of any that were prosecuted. I'm sure the Koreans fell back on the "we all look alike" defense if prosecuters tried to identify individuals for arrest. Koreans are pretty smart.
View Quote
Steyr, I think the government did not try to prosecute, because they knew they would have lost! I am sooooo glad I don't live in Kali.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:43:17 PM EDT
I watched THE PRACTICE a few weeks ago and the Assistant DA said Jury Nullification was illegal. [;)]
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 3:45:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 5:00:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2002 5:07:09 PM EDT by Armson-Oeg]
I was on a jury a short time ago in St.Louis. And we were given the guys previous record of three prior's on car theft, which was the case we heard. It surprised me. I think most here know what cases that would require a not guilty verdict based on unjust law, i.e. A W ban, some CCW case's and other Constitutional case's. And i know im not breaking any laws by voting to not convict on MAN made laws designed to violate the Constitution. There is a Jury Hanbook available that details your duties as an American. Also the System sucks. I was arrested once held for two hours then released pending a Warrant for my arrest. Nothing ever happend, until i tried to by a Handgun. It was rejected TWO years latter because of a Felony Warrant Application PENDING. I finally got that part cleared to buy the handgun. But i am ETERNALLY in the SYSTEM, Even after supposedly having it removed. this will always follow me even though i never was indited, never went to court, never convicted!! Just arrested. Remember better for a Guilty man to go free than an innocent one to be convicted..
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 5:23:57 PM EDT
I don't know the law about jury nullification, but isn't the point moot? Say you're on a jury, and you swear to follow the rules, whatever, and when the time comes, you don't say "I am nullifying this law", you just vote not guilty and there's a mistrial, right? Would they question your motives? Do they have the right to question your motives?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 5:36:07 PM EDT
The deal with the LA riots, just like the Watts riots in the 60's, is the LAPD and other local PDs set up perimeters to keep the rioters in. They had no immediate plan to stop the rioting, just to keep the rioters from spreading out into the suburbs. During the Watts riots, they set up barricades on the major streets and did not let people travel to outlying areas. If your drivers license said you live in Watts, you were not allowed to drive to Pasadena. The Watts riots were finally put down by the Guard, who through the use of .50 BMGs mounted on Jeeps, put an end to the snipers who were shooting at the cops when they finally did try move in. In the end, it's you against the mob. You better be armed.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 6:00:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 7:23:40 PM EDT
Where is the jury supposed to draw the line between the facts and the law in a case? Consider, for instance, section 2923.12 of the Ohio Revised Code: "No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on his or her person or concealed ready at hand, any deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance." If the case of someone charged under this law came before a jury, would the decision of whether the deadly weapon in question was "ready at hand" be a matter of fact or of law? Suppose the defendant was carrying an unloaded Ruger SP101 in a concealed shoulder holster and had five loose .357 rounds in his pocket. The defense argues that an unloaded gun isn't "deadly" and that the gun couldn't be loaded quickly enough to be considered "ready at hand". The prosecution disagrees. How does the jury decide?
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 7:29:56 PM EDT
"How does the jury decide?" With YOUR uncommon sense.
Link Posted: 4/29/2002 7:30:40 PM EDT
Talk about coincidence. I just got a jury summons for next Monday!!! Steyr, you know something I don't?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top