User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 8:45:27 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So says the lawyer... ETA: If lawyers can dismiss a potential juror "peremptory" (without cause), jurors should be able to dismiss (i.e, not apply) an unjust law. Same principal. Both are in place to protect the accused and help insure they are not railroaded or otherwise taken advantage of. Actually that part in red is the role and responsibility of the presiding judge and the appeals process. The "peremptory" strikes are limited for each side. On the defense side, the defendant is consulting with his attorneys on who he wants removed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 8:57:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You vote counter to unjust laws and keep your mouth shut about nullification anywhere near a courthouse. You do not have to explain yourself. This is how it’s done. Snake in the grass. This. Me and 5 other very conservative jurors nullified a completely stupid charge against a stripper in 1991 in Harris County TX Court. "Solicitation of an alcoholic beverage." In hindsight, we should have done the same for the "lude dancing" charge. More of an unspoken thing between us during deliberations. Judge should have thrown the whole case out and I'd always hoped it had been tossed on appeal, as the prosecution lost video from a hidden camera, then found the video tape and said it had been recorded over. The judge was such a rabid Southern Baptist that he didn't want to throw out any cases that could help shut down strip clubs, so he set his oath aside for personal reasons, and prob for Fundy votes in Houston... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:06:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually that part in red is the role and responsibility of the presiding judge and the appeals process. The "peremptory" strikes are limited for each side. On the defense side, the defendant is consulting with his attorneys on who he wants removed. Jury nullification is necessary to balance the inequities of prosecution. The Government has ENDLESS resources to prosecute citizens. IT IS INHERENTLY AN UNFAIR FIGHT. The system is full of examples of innocence based on evidence which STILL results in conviction. Your typical citizen doesn’t have the financial resources to fight the charges, and the attorneys are incentivized to make plea deals regardless of the evidence. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but our system of justice is BROKEN. If it wasn’t broken and fair, I’d be inclined to agree with you. However, Lady Liberty is no longer impartial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:24:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Founding Fathers knew that bad laws need challenging. That's why we have trial jury. Actually, that's why we have an appeals process. THAT is where challenges to the Constitutionality of a law are made once someone is charged. Juries aren't chosen for their qualifications in Constitutional Law, and as such aren't expected or authorized to make such determinations. If they WERE, we could eliminate all higher courts, because then a jury's verdict of guilty would be a legal finding that the laws were, in fact, Constitutional, as well as finding that the facts fit the charge under law. Would you rather have that? 12 people "not smart enough to avoid jury duty" making the binding and final decision on whether the law and how it was applied is Constitutional? Please note that when a law is challenged there is no jury involved. The two sides argue before a judge or panel of judges, who makes a ruling on the law itself, rather than on a physical defendant. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:34:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve had jury duty in both OH and TN a few times and do not recall any oath that would be violated by jury nullification. What did you swear to? Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve had jury duty in both OH and TN a few times and do not recall any oath that would be violated by jury nullification. What did you swear to? In Florida, the oath (well, question posed to the jurors) is as follows: Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try the issues between the State of Florida and the defendant and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God? If you answer "yes" to that question and then decide to disregard the law on your own analysis of its Constitutionality, Fairness, Equity, because the victim really deserved what they got™, or because Tuesday is Opposite Day, you are in violation of the juror's oath. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:34:49 AM EDT
[#6]
@aimless
Would you have voted to convict Ratzlaf? I wouldn't have because even though he violated the black letter law, the result was manifestly unjust. Cliffnotes: Ratzlaf owed $100k in legal gambling debts and paid them using sub-$10k payment instruments in order to avoid the reporting requirements. They strung him up for "structuring." There was *NO* underlying criminality. His debt was legal and the money he paid it with was legally earned. The only law he broke was paying in $9900 increments to avoid the government being up in his business. I'd nullify that jury if I were on it every single time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:40:20 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds good. Too bad ordinary citizens don't have the legal authority to determine whether a law is constitutional. Sure you can, otherwise there would be no point to having a jury instead of a bench trial. And what if the state is violating something else like - like equal protection under the law? IE: They refuse to prosecute ANTIFA for burning down courthouses, but they do prosecute a guy that sat in Pelosi's chair & took a picture? Or they prosecute the grandmother that walked into the capitol building, but they refuse to prosecute Colbert's crew for doing the same thing? The jury gets to determine the constitutionality of the prosecution, the law, & anything else... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:42:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Me and 5 other very conservative jurors nullified a completely stupid charge against a stripper in 1991 in Harris County TX Court. "Solicitation of an alcoholic beverage." In hindsight, we should have done the same for the "lude dancing" charge. More of an unspoken thing between us during deliberations. Judge should have thrown the whole case out and I'd always hoped it had been tossed on appeal, as the prosecution lost video from a hidden camera, then found the video tape and said it had been recorded over. The judge was such a rabid Southern Baptist that he didn't want to throw out any cases that could help shut down strip clubs, so he set his oath aside for personal reasons, and prob for Fundy votes in Houston... Spoliation of evidence - you should have acquitted based on the negative inference. The prosecutor had 1 job... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:43:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification is necessary to balance the inequities of prosecution. The Government has ENDLESS resources to prosecute citizens. IT IS INHERENTLY AN UNFAIR FIGHT. The system is full of examples of innocence based on evidence which STILL results in conviction. Your typical citizen doesn’t have the financial resources to fight the charges, and the attorneys are incentivized to make plea deals regardless of the evidence. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but our system of justice is BROKEN. If it wasn’t broken and fair, I’d be inclined to agree with you. However, Lady Liberty is no longer impartial. It's not a "justice" system, it's a "legal" system - rarely does anyone get justice by going to court... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:43:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't agree with the blasphemy, but agree with the sentiment. "Well, the law says you need a stamp for that...and he didn't have a stamp...so as a juror I must vote guilty." - Half of GD So you have two sentimental choices: 1. Recuse yourself in the jury selection process. 2. Become a warrior for truth and justice by ignoring your sworn duty as a juror, which is limited to judging guilt or innonence based on the preponderance of evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:44:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They arrested and charged a guy for handing out flyers explaining jury nullification, he was outside the court house. Don't know what happend, I suspect the charges were dropped or he got contempt of court. He was not part of an active or prior case. As I understand it, jury nullification requires the entire jury to find the defendant not guilt, even though he is guilty of breaking the law. The Dad on the pay phone who popped the pedo is a perfect example (I don;t remember if he was found guilty.) Quote HistoryQuoted: keep your mouth shut about nullification anywhere near a courthouse. They arrested and charged a guy for handing out flyers explaining jury nullification, he was outside the court house. Don't know what happend, I suspect the charges were dropped or he got contempt of court. He was not part of an active or prior case. As I understand it, jury nullification requires the entire jury to find the defendant not guilt, even though he is guilty of breaking the law. The Dad on the pay phone who popped the pedo is a perfect example (I don;t remember if he was found guilty.) Gary Plauche. He did not face trial, he took a plea bargain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 9:46:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 10:00:56 AM EDT
[#13]
I tried it once. They had a guy on attempting to manufacture meth and manufacturing meth, and several other charges. He was guilty, but myself and another juror agreed that it wasnt fair to find him guilty of attempting if he did manufacture and we found him guilty of that. So we went hung on that charge. Then watched as they decided to retry him on that charge alone after getting guiltys on all the rest. Of course in that trial there would be no mention of the previous guiltys. And the judge would not answer our simple direct questions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 10:02:49 AM EDT
[#14]
They don't get together and say we're doing a jurry nullification. They just take it in their own hands that they are going to "fix the issue" for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 10:10:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. I've been on two juries. One murder trial and one drug thing. I did not swear any oaths. The judge told us to follow his instructions, to only consider the evidence presented in court, and to find the defendant guilty or not guilty based only on whether it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they violated that particular law. While I felt that I had a duty to abide by that, had there been a situation in which I believed that a person was "guilty" but that the law they broke was unconstitutional, I would not hesitate to vote not guilty because I have an even higher duty to justice than I do to doing what some judge says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 10:16:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So says the lawyer... ETA: If lawyers can dismiss a potential juror "peremptory" (without cause), jurors should be able to dismiss (i.e, not apply) an unjust law. Same principal. Both are in place to protect the accused and help insure they are not railroaded or otherwise taken advantage of.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 10:22:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How so ? What oath do you swear ?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:15:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If we weren't to judge the merit of the law, wouldn't the court be better served just having lawyers and judges make up a jury? They would have a better understanding of the letter of the law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You don't get to decide what's constitutional, jurors now only decide the facts. You can commit perjury and do whatever you want secretly. If state what you just said during jury selection you would be removed for cause If we weren't to judge the merit of the law, wouldn't the court be better served just having lawyers and judges make up a jury? They would have a better understanding of the letter of the law. Big facts here ^ The power of the jury is the last line of defense for the People. Unfortunately, most people today lack the will, and comprehension to act as anything other than an agent of the State. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:19:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification is necessary to balance the inequities of prosecution. The Government has ENDLESS resources to prosecute citizens. IT IS INHERENTLY AN UNFAIR FIGHT. The system is full of examples of innocence based on evidence which STILL results in conviction. Your typical citizen doesn’t have the financial resources to fight the charges, and the attorneys are incentivized to make plea deals regardless of the evidence. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but our system of justice is BROKEN. If it wasn’t broken and fair, I’d be inclined to agree with you. However, Lady Liberty is no longer impartial. I think the feds have been heavily politicized and infiltrated by the left which has weaponized a lot of the LE side and AGs against anything that is conservative or on the right. The pleas are a result of not every case being able to go to trial, but also are negotiated to give the defendant a lesser sentence than a guilty verdict and conviction would bring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:33:12 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gary Plauche. He did not face trial, he took a plea bargain. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: keep your mouth shut about nullification anywhere near a courthouse. They arrested and charged a guy for handing out flyers explaining jury nullification, he was outside the court house. Don't know what happend, I suspect the charges were dropped or he got contempt of court. He was not part of an active or prior case. As I understand it, jury nullification requires the entire jury to find the defendant not guilt, even though he is guilty of breaking the law. The Dad on the pay phone who popped the pedo is a perfect example (I don;t remember if he was found guilty.) Gary Plauche. He did not face trial, he took a plea bargain. The guy must have been mentally or financially beat to accept a plea bargain in that case. By the time the prosecution is done dancing around the nature of the materials distributed, the case would be so hollow that even jurors without a nullification streak would strike it down. A good lawyer would be able to paint them into a corner, or at least cast doubt on the validity of the “crime” by pushing through the facade presented by the prosecution. And if the nature and meaning of the materials being distributed are by some odd reason allowed to be introduced to the case, I’d say it’s a slam dunk for the defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:34:54 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Spoliation of evidence - you should have acquitted based on the negative inference. The prosecutor had 1 job... We should've acquitted because we got to see the defendant in a t-back during trial and it was glorious  . There was an issue about whether or not she had a visible birthmark and they cleared the court room and had her drop trou. That was a fun trial.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:35:40 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In Florida, the oath (well, question posed to the jurors) is as follows: If you answer "yes" to that question and then decide to disregard the law on your own analysis of its Constitutionality, Fairness, Equity, because the victim really deserved what they got™, or because Tuesday is Opposite Day, you are in violation of the juror's oath. Mike Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve had jury duty in both OH and TN a few times and do not recall any oath that would be violated by jury nullification. What did you swear to? In Florida, the oath (well, question posed to the jurors) is as follows: Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try the issues between the State of Florida and the defendant and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God? If you answer "yes" to that question and then decide to disregard the law on your own analysis of its Constitutionality, Fairness, Equity, because the victim really deserved what they got™, or because Tuesday is Opposite Day, you are in violation of the juror's oath. Mike What would happen to one who refuses to take oath or answers "no"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:39:55 AM EDT
[#23]
to circle back to the op the first rule of jury nullification is you don't talk about it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:40:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No matter how good the state's case is, I'm just not convinced that it's beyond A Reasonable Doubt. This. The credibility of any given witness is a question for the trier of fact. And if you just happen to believe that every single agent of a certain agency which isn't to be named but is known for being Famous But Incompetent is not credible, then you're free to weigh their testimony appropriately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 11:56:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Last time I served on a federal jury they made a point to tell you couldn't do that. I took that to mean it must happen often enough when the evidence should have been enough to convict but the verdict came back opposite of the evidence. I am not so sure the reason they mentioned it was based on the rare occasion the jury disagreed with the actual law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 12:25:20 PM EDT
[#26]
These days it is going to be damn hard to get an acquittal with 12 jurors using jury nullification to flat out walk somebody.
Much more likely that it will wind up with a hung jury and a mistrial with the case retried. The voirdire process is set to weed out those who believe in Jury Nullification. Get in a disagreement with the district attorney or the judge on this issue and you will likely be gone. Seen FAR too many jurors that say they can follow the law even if they disagree with it. Heard judges say the line "if you do not like a law then you can vote to change it." Yeah, problem with a represenative elected official along with politically motivated Goverment appointed judges is that we get butt fucked. Jurora absolutely 100% should be able to hold the law in judgement every bit as much as the facts. To get on a jury and be able to exercise jury nullification means you will have to lie several times during VoirDire. Seen a juror make a comment during voirdire that they feel the jury is the most important people in the courtroom. Saw the judge tell that juror they are wrong and that it is the judge that is the most important because he decides what law applies to the case. Wish the defense attorney was smart enough to ask the prospective jurors if their opinions had changed at all after that statement from the judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 1:54:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I tried it once. They had a guy on attempting to manufacture meth and manufacturing meth, and several other charges. He was guilty, but myself and another juror agreed that it wasnt fair to find him guilty of attempting if he did manufacture and we found him guilty of that. So we went hung on that charge. Then watched as they decided to retry him on that charge alone after getting guiltys on all the rest. Of course in that trial there would be no mention of the previous guiltys. And the judge would not answer our simple direct questions. Do you even Williams Rule? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 1:59:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What would happen to one who refuses to take oath or answers "no"? Released and alternate juror takes their spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 2:26:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Last time I served on a federal jury they made a point to tell you couldn't do that. I took that to mean it must happen often enough when the evidence should have been enough to convict but the verdict came back opposite of the evidence. I am not so sure the reason they mentioned it was based on the rare occasion the jury disagreed with the actual law. I guess the Sussman jury didnt heed those instructions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 3:03:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What would happen to one who refuses to take oath or answers "no"? Why would I agree to open myself up to a criminal perjury charge. I had always wondered until I saw this;  Can You Say ''No'' When Asked to Tell the Truth in Court? Some more stuff on juries & how the court fucks jurors;  Court Rounds Up People At the Mall And Makes Them Jurors  Are Juries Really Told to Forget What They Just Heard?  Summoned for Jury Duty! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 3:12:26 PM EDT
[#31]
And some stuff on jury nullification;
 What is Jury Nullification? - Lehto''s Law Ep. 5.57  Jury Nullification in the News! Ep. 6.060  Jury Nullification Conviction Tossed by MI Supreme Court - Ep. 6.639 About smart people being dismissed during voir dire;  Why You Were Not Selected for Jury Duty - LL Ep. 5.256 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 3:34:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. I thought oaths made under duress were generally void? Is being forced to be somewhere (jury duty) under threat of violence or imprisonment considered duress, or does the government believe that this situation is not applicable since it is the government and not an individual performing the action. Just thinking out loud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 3:58:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought oaths made under duress were generally void? Is being forced to be somewhere (jury duty) under threat of violence or imprisonment considered duress, or does the government believe that this situation is not applicable since it is the government and not an individual performing the action. Just thinking out loud. Wonder if draftees during any of the wars took an oath? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 4:25:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe the area I live in is not a cesspool like DC or some of the big liberal ran cities. Maybe we would like to not automatically let anyone, regardless of the charge, just go without a trial. Maybe we realize we don't have to live under the conditions you describe at the local level. You good with just blindly fucking over an actual victim of say sexual battery, aggravated child abuse, child molestation or murder as examples go to stick your finger in the eye of a political party? Yeah,because that's what he posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 4:36:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. Ok commie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 4:44:58 PM EDT
[#36]
A few points:
1. In the jury room you can discuss it as much as you want, or not, and vote the way you want. You are a juror. You are a free citizen sitting on a jury, it is the last hope for freedom. So exercise your free rights as you see fit. 2. During jury selection the judge will most likely ask if there is anyone who will not apply the law as the judge instructs. If you want to be honest you will tell the judge you might not. I always do, and as a result I never get selected. I do get pulled into the court room for one on one discussion with the judge and I just tell the judge that I will follow what I believe is right, that following the law is generally a right thing to do, but that I would not vote to convict the family that hid Ann Frank, and I would not vote to return a slave under the Fugitive Slave Act. Frankly, my statement is what every thinking juror should say because whether you know it or not, everyone engages in jury nullification to one degree or another. But the court does not like when someone is up front about it, and the parties to the matter are not going to want a juror who is thinking. So if you are honest about your belief you will not get selected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 4:49:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. I think the US Supreme Court has said differently. I believe the Supreme Court has said the jurors have the right to nullification, the defendant just does not have a right to a nullification jury instruction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 4:50:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wonder if draftees during any of the wars took an oath? Some of them refused, and died as a result of the abuse they received. Joseph and Michael Hofer would be an example of two that died as a result of their treatment by the US military for refusing to serve. Historically, the job of the jury was to judge both the guilt of the accused and the validity of the law in the case being tried. The US government does not like being limited by it's citizenry, and so it has have tried to remove and prohibit the knowledge of jury nullification. The simple fact that the government does not wish it to be known should encourage any and all that have any desire to serve their fellow citizen to study up on the concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Different states have different requirements. In R.I. Jurors swear an oath. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/81043/2AB96DF1-ADFC-47E2-B9D4-66106B0D876D_png-2469354.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How so ? What oath do you swear ? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/81043/2AB96DF1-ADFC-47E2-B9D4-66106B0D876D_png-2469354.JPG Ok, let's war game this. I swear that oath, then I nullify to my heart's content. What bad thing happens to me then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:14:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jury nullification violates the oath you swear as a juror. But various parts of GD only care about lying sometimes, so you do you. I highly recommend telling the judge your intentions. How do you square that with this: "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." Georgia v. Brailsford ... or this ... "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 or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." U.S. v. Moylan |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:15:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, wut? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The way I understand it is that when the Jury is in deliberations THEY ARE the law. He's right. Kinda the point of even having juries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:17:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah,because that's what he posted. His post was: "No matter how good the state's case is, I'm just not convinced that it's beyond A Reasonable Doubt." You see any delineation in what the state's cases are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:20:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe the area I live in is not a cesspool like DC or some of the big liberal ran cities. Maybe we would like to not automatically let anyone, regardless of the charge, just go without a trial. Maybe we realize we don't have to live under the conditions you describe at the local level. You good with just blindly fucking over an actual victim of say sexual battery, aggravated child abuse, child molestation or murder as examples go to stick your finger in the eye of a political party? I'm good with not storming a man's house and shooting his wife to death while she holds a baby because he sawed a shotgun barrel "maybe" a few tenths of an inch shorter than he should have at the behest of an undercover agent. Some "authoritah" should not be respected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:22:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't get to decide what's constitutional, jurors now only decide the facts. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:31:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would I agree to open myself up to a criminal perjury charge. I had always wondered until I saw this;  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmjHGcLT-6MTwo things on that first point. First, is that California is now allowing felons to serve on jury panels. Have seen several folks ask why the fuck they were called when they have prior felonies. Second, if it is a criminal trial, why can the court coerce me to testify against myself as a juror should their questions lead down a path regarding suitability? If I refuse to take the oath out of concerns for my 5th Amendment rights, is that enough. If questioned on it then I would bring up the fact that there is a District Attorney that is an acting agent of the government that cpuld bring charges against me. It is just easier to say "thank you for your time" and excuse the juror that is of that mindset. Funny thing is there are some judges that love to try to make an example out of people should they not go along with the peer pressure/group think they try to push onto the jury pool regarding nullification. They want pod people not individuals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:31:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's right. Kinda the poitn of even having juries. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The way I understand it is that when the Jury is in deliberations THEY ARE the law. He's right. Kinda the poitn of even having juries. Maybe 2% of the US population knows the point of our jury system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 5:58:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Still sounds dangerous. Not really happens all the time in cases you dont here about. There are plenty of folks who are on juries that votes based on skin color. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 6:24:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In Florida, the oath (well, question posed to the jurors) is as follows: If you answer "yes" to that question and then decide to disregard the law on your own analysis of its Constitutionality, Fairness, Equity, because the victim really deserved what they got™, or because Tuesday is Opposite Day, you are in violation of the juror's oath. Mike Quote HistoryQuoted: In Florida, the oath (well, question posed to the jurors) is as follows: Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try the issues between the State of Florida and the defendant and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God? If you answer "yes" to that question and then decide to disregard the law on your own analysis of its Constitutionality, Fairness, Equity, because the victim really deserved what they got™, or because Tuesday is Opposite Day, you are in violation of the juror's oath. Mike The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any juror who doesn't consider constitutionality is violating an oath to render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 6:30:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe 2% of the US population knows the point of our jury system. You are an optimist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2022 6:33:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well I just got a Jury summons for 3rd week in August. Anybody familiar how this works in Texas courtrooms? @nolocontendere For the most part, you sit around bored out of your mind, then get sent home. If you want to sit on the jury, don't answer any of the questions the lawyers ask. If you don't want to sit on the jury, tell them you are related to a cop. Keep this in mind: You might be the only thing that keeps an innocent person from going to jail and if YOU were that defendant, would you want YOU on the jury? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
