Posted on 10/26/2016 4:02:08 AM PDT by Nextrush
Thanks, didn’t know that! I’ll look that up!!
...and possession of guns in a federal facility....
The U.S. and States are corporately owned by the People.
A regulation exists that says possession of firearms on property owned by the People is a prosecutable crime. The Supreme Law of the Land says ‘shall not be infringed’.
“Who made you king? I didn’t vote for you!”
Grrrrrrr!
“Perhaps he/she is a govt plant, just like the FBI plants that were in on the occupation itself?”
Did you read where one of the plants was running the shooting range. And apparently they paraded a bunch of firearms in front of the jury, and come to find out a bunch of people hose firearms were the ones the plants brought in.
We truly are in big trouble when this kind of stuff is allowed to stand in a court of law. And couple this with the constitution being stricken and we have what you noted....a govt to fear.
Also have you read any comments at the oregonlive website? Boy those people are certainly not my countrymen.
Update: reported in NYT, WAPO that Judge Brown has ruled that the juror who said he was very biased isn’t biased, and will stay on the jury.
Now, if the guy admitted he's biased in the jury room, he could be sanctioned for lying during voir dire. If the defense thinks he's biased against their case, they might not want a retrial as they think the rest of the jury might result in an aquittal. Retrials are expensive, the prosecutors don't care they have all the money they need. Defense has to be paid.
...The defense attorney should not have had to. The JUDGE should have sent this guy off to some other jury...
,he defense attorneys should have asked the former BLM employee if be could be impartial based on his former employer. If he had said yes, then it would be a are you lying now, or were you lying then situation.
But, bottom line, the attorneys blew it by not excusing him from the pool.
There’s a reason why cops, Investigators, lawyers, and former employees like this don’t usually get on the jury. It’s the lawyers fault completely.
Some of the times judges excuse a person are when a potential juror is OPENLY biased by making a statement, when a person knows or is a relative of a party is a Felon, or says they are incapable of rendering a verdict.
The attorneys can excuse a certain number of potential jurors and not give any reason.
yep
I am aware of all that but the bottom line is the Judge should not have allowed this juror to be on this jury. Period. No excuse.
The one time I was called for federal jury duty, part of voir dire was questioning the jury pool if they had any direct or familial connection to the federal goverment (I did, my ex-wife had clerked for the DOJ). That alone was enough to exclude me without either the defense or prosecution having to use a challenge. It is unfathomable that a former BLM employee made it past voir dire unless that process was severely tainted.
These things happen...
I was an expert witness on a several million dollar civil trial.
My first cousin who I grew up with and whose wife was my secretary was on the jury.
I was provided the prospective jury list and fully disclosed the relationship. Our last names were even the same.
Much to my surprise, when I walked into the court room to testify, there he was on the jury. Needless to say, my client, the plaintiff won the case... The defendant was a large insurance company who was trying to cheat my client out of a legitimate property loss claim.
After hearing a juror say they are biased and they then return to the deliberating jury after talking to the judge, it would make me vote to acquit whether I personally thought the accused was guilty or not.
It’s about the process. If you can’t get a “fair” deliberation there is no justice. If the judge allows a juror who expressed their bias to the rest of the Jury to remain and taint it, it’s a miscarriage of justice.
Seems like a goof-up on the part of the defense attorney.
Mistrial
This is a trial with a forgone conclusion. Fixed, predetermined as in hillary clinton’s email (non)investigation.
How the heck did the defense allow this guy anywhere near the jury?
And the whistle blower will be sent packing.
It is interesting to see attorneys at work in voir dire. They will do everything from ask seemingly unrelated questions to bore you to death. But I know some of that is to watch the reactions of prospective jurors (i.e. will you get bored by details and not pay attention etc). The last case was dui manslaughter and they ended up with mostly men and I felt the defense was going for 2 things- people who drank who would be sympathetic, and men who would understand the technicalities of the defense’s argument. Result: guilty (and an acquaintance in the DA’s office told me they felt they could lose the case).
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.