Posted on 04/23/2024 11:39:07 AM PDT by Beowulf9
There's been a case in New York that I should have been following more closely. Dexter Taylor was a hobby gunsmith. He liked the nature of putting together guns from lawfully purchased parts.
However, the state of New York disapproved of this pastime. They arrested Taylor and, on Monday, he was convicted.
My friend Jeff Charles over at our sister site RedState has been covering this case pretty much from the jump, and in his story from Monday about the sentencing, there was something we had to talk about.
You see, the judge in the case has decided that a certain right of interest to Bearing Arms readers doesn't actually exist in her state.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:
She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'
Varghese said he had filed the appropriate paperwork to “preserve these arguments for appeal” but that the judge "rejected these arguments, and she went out of her way to limit me.”
The Second Amendment doesn't exist there? Excuse the hell out of me?
"This is New York?"
This just smacks of "the Aloha spirit" nonsense where some parties seem to think that the Constitution doesn't actually apply because they really, really don't like it.
Is the judge in this case, Judge Abena Darkeh, suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn't apply anywhere she doesn't approve? What other rights don't exist in New York under Judge Darkeh's paradigm? Do defendants not have the right to representation? Is free speech non-existent?
Oh, one might make the case that I'm being ridiculous, but I don't think I am. Not based on Darkeh's other actions.
Varghese also tries to take a jury nullification approach. Jury nullification basically means you convince the jury that while a crime might have occurred, the law in question is the real problem. It's rare, but it's still a thing. Judges aren't supposed to encourage it, but they're not supposed to stop it.
Yet Judge Darkeh did just that. She reportedly warned jurors in such a way as to suggest they could face consequences if they didn't vote to convict.
So, basically, it feels like Taylor got railroaded and that Darkeh doesn't actually think people have rights unless she, personally, approves of them.
Yet that's not how rights work. They exist even if they're inconvenient. They exist even if you don't approve of how they're used.
Varghese says he tried to preserve Darkeh's comments for appeal and was stymied. However, her comments should still be on the record somewhere. If not, her attitude should be clear from the transcripts.
But either way, Darkeh makes it clear that at least some jurists in New York really don't think the Second Amendment applies in either their courtroom or the state as a whole.
It's time they're disabused of that notion by higher courts.
Those words almost certainly makes the case appealable.
The moment a judge says you don’t have Constitutional rights in my courtroom, that pretty much nullifies the case.
What I worry about is if everyone else on the court in NY is of same mind then no one gets this thrown out.
Not surprising that she thinks the Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Seems like this would be easy grounds to overturn
Supreme Court. It seems denying somebody their Constitutional rights explicitly is a ready-made case for the Supreme Court.
Judge Darkee?
Bwhahahahahaha!!!!!!
If they proclaim themselves above that founding framework, they must not expect to cower behind its protections.
Flaying comes to mind.
The judge should be pursued under the above statute for her behavior in the trial.
Well.....
Let see. In NY, if your a conservative, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, 7th, and the 8th Amendment doesn’t exist either. Ask Donald Trump.
That means that MAYBE, NY recognizes only the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. 3 out of 10 Ain’t good unless it’s a batting average........
Probably another DEI ingenue who has some plagiarism in her background.
How apropos! And predictable.
I have heard that the way to circumvent this kind of insanity is to hire your own court reporter. The judge can’t stop you, and you have all the records you need.
Yes. Agree!
Only if there is a transcript record....does NY have court reporters in the trial courts? California doesn’t, you have to bring your own
” California doesn’t, you have to bring your own”
What about all those Perry Mason movies with court reporters?
California gave up supplying them in courts around 10 years ago
Judge A-be'n a Dark-eh! (Tribal pronunciation.)
Father is an immigrant from Ghana who went to Columbia. She went to Georgetown.
Steeped in marxism.
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.