Posted on 05/22/2010 6:22:22 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
I'm afraid that's not really the answer either. I've bailiffed for our County on quite a few juries. Watching the whole voir dire process many times, I've concluded that it's a crap shoot.
Some that I've thought no way in you-know-where were going to be chosen and they were and vice versa! Good luck.
But can’t the judge remove a juror if he/she suspects or can prove that the juror is practicing jury nullification?
If such a verdict is in a defendants favor, the rule of lenity prevents it from being overturned on appeal.
So...
You’re on a jury in a case where a landlord has refused to rent to a minority for whatever reason and he gets charged with violation of civil rights, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
You’re on a jury in a case where a employer has refused to hire a minority for whatever reason and he gets charged with violation of civil rights, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
You’re on a jury in a case where a citizen has shot a minority criminal in his front yard and he gets charged with violation of the criminal’s rights based only on the race of the criminal, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
You’re on a jury in a case where a conservative was passing out campaign literature for conservatives right in front of a polling place on election day and he gets charged with violation of federal election laws, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS.
You’re on a jury in a case where a hard working taxpayer was charged with not declaring some of his cash income and violating tax laws, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE FEDERAL TAX LAWS.
You’re on a jury in a case where the Boy Scouts of America are being harassed by some lefty group, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE WHATEVER FEDERAL LAW THEY’RE BEING CHARGED WITH VIOLATING.
You’re on a jury in any case where a law abiding citizen is charged with violating any gun law, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE ARBITRARY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN LAW.
I’m starting to warm up to this pick and choose which laws to enforce thing. :-)
Feel free to add your suggestions to my list.
If the feds wont process illegals from Arizona, I, as a laid off American, volunteer to drive bus loads of illegals from AZ to sanctuary cities that oppose the AZ law. I will even provide sack lunches for extra long trips.
So, it's tent city for them. Install the national guard as guards. Is there any doubt that we are living under a communists King Obama? America is done. When will the real America wake up.
Thought of another one...
You’re on a jury in a case where a music fan was harassed by the RIAA executives (who donate huge sums to Democrats) and charged with copyright violation for downloading gigabytes of music, the jury can choose NOT ENFORCE THE FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS.
“Could you imagine what would happen if fedzilla was unable to EVER SECURE A CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FEDERAL TAXES.”
You may be on to something there!
I’ve been called a couple of times and been dismissed just for reading one of those pocket Gideon New Testaments.
Arizona and other states who want to protect their borders can do it without the help of the Feds.
These states could state that since the Federal Government has made it policy not to enforce federal law, the citizens of these states are henceforth exempt from paying Federal income tax.
The one thing that the Feds are supposed to do - secure our borders - they are not doing, so the states should keep that money in their own states and use it to secure their borders themselves.
Or they can take a page out of the Chicago Democrat playbook since illegal immigrants are technically looting the states treasury. From Mayor Richard J Daley’s own lips:
“I said to him very emphatically and very definitely that an order be issued by him immediately to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand, because they’re potential murderers, and to SHOOT TO MAIM OR CRIPPLE ANYONE LOOTING.” Richard J Daley 1968
When this Country was founded, all criminal defendants were deemed incompetent to testify. A good, short history is in the decision Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 573 -582 (1961). Now, as you stated, some think a defendant "has to" testify.
When our Country was founded, a jury of your peers (which is actually in the Magna Carta, not the Constitution) meant that jurors had to know the defendant. Now, if you know anything about them you will not be accepted on a jury.
Things have changed a lot since our Country was founded.
Jury Nullification.
Recently I drew jury duty. While I was being interviewed, the judge got to the part where he asked, “Are there any questions?”
“Yes, your honor, can you explain jury nullification to me?”
I was got out the courtroom with my summons being stamped completed, less than 5 minutes later.
interesting
Exactly. The lawyers are looking for people who are ill-informed and easily influenced.
Welcome Home ,, I missed you....
Let’s dump all the illegals in front of the White House.
I was sitting thorough voire dire on a DUI case. The defense attorney way lying about the accuracy of the gas chromatography measurement of blood alcohol level. I've done the procedure in my college biochem labs with my grade resting on accuracy 5 places after the decimal. I called him on it. I also pointed out my first hand experience with drunkeness as the family bartender from age 5. I also mentioned by name the 5 members of my high school graduating class who were killed by drunk drivers before graduation. I wasn't seated. The defendant was convicted of driving with a .27 BAC.
It can go both ways, I was on a jury for a DWI, the guy was guilty as could be. However there was one jury member who hated police and keep insisting that we turn the guy loose. After two days she had worn down every one but me. I held out for a hung jury. We were dismissed and when they retried it he was convicted. If your on a jury with some Lib who wants to make a statement by letting some one go free. you can at lest stop them and make them go threw it again.
The last few times I've been called for duty (never seated), we were told to swear that we would apply the law whether we agreed with it or not. I suppose most would feel cowed by that even if they believed the application of the law to be an "ass" under certain circumstances. You would feel like you had perjured yourself. Such is the intimidation applied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.