Posted on 05/19/2017 4:17:09 PM PDT by Coronal
PHOENIX (AP) - An appeals court has rejected former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's bid to have a jury, rather than a judge, decide whether he is guilty of a criminal contempt-of-court charge for disobeying a court order in a racial profiling case.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Arpaio didn't show that his request warranted its intervention in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at azfamily.com ...
Sheriff Joe is getting railroaded, we are all entitled to a jury of our peers.
Sheriff Joe is getting railroaded, we are all entitled to a jury of our peers.
Amen.
What a bunch of shat.
The 9th Circus strikes, again.
This is a federal case and Trump can pardon him. He should. Sherriff Joe was one of his earliest and most steadfast supporters.
I have personally spoken to Sherriff Joe several times and I can tell you without question he is the same man in person that you see on any media coverage.
I thought a trial in front of a jury of your pears was a Constitutional right?
What about the 6th Amendment?
Under Arizona statute, misdemeanor offenses can be tried by a judge.
“Under Arizona statute, misdemeanor offenses can be tried by a judge.”
Thanks-—I knew if I was patient I would get a valid reason from a FReeper.
.
The Joe I know don’t need no stinking pardon - give him a jury trial.
Interesting...
Flies in the face of the US Constitution, but...interesting.
Can be or shall be?
I’m praying to be picked for the jury
No surprise from this kangaroo court.
It is. Too bad so many are illiterate of this right.
” “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
Guess the 6th Amendment doesn’t have meaning anymore.
SCOTUS long ago held that there is no right to trial by jury if the maximum penalty is not more than 6 months in prison.
The illiterate founders words were utterly clear. They could not be any more clear. The constitution was written such that any literate person could understand it.
It does not require the filter of a secret body of law. It need not be analyzed against other legal ideas.
It says precisely what it means. Arpaio’s rights are being violated.
Yup.
Did you really mean to write, "illiterate"? If so, could you explain - I don't understand. Thanks.
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.