Posted on 10/29/2014 7:10:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment VI, grants the criminally accused a right to a “speedy and public trial … by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime shall have been committed.”
The framers of the Constitution included this protection because of the brutal system in England where a person could be thrown into a dungeon without formal charges and tried before the crown without the benefit of a public trial or having people from the community hear the evidence against them.
To remedy this abuse of King George’s government, the newly formed government in America granted its citizens a right to a trial by people in the community.
This 18th century concept was a vast improvement from what had been the plight of the criminally accused.
The system worked fine until the second American Revolution (also known as the Civil War) ended in 1865 with the freeing of the Africans who were enslaved in the US.
Prior to this time, the courts were reserved for Europeans who judged other Europeans. The enslaved Africans were at the mercy of their captors.
The law of the land allowed every enslaver to deal with his captives as he pleased. There was very little if any justice for the enslaved.
After 1865, Africans living in America as citizens were granted access to the courts via Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. If accused of a crime, these new citizens had the protection of the Sixth Amendment.
How that played out in real time is that jury service was reserved for landowners. In the late 18th and much of the 19th centuries, landownership was mostly reserved for white men.
Thus, white men determined the fate of Africans accused of crimes in America for most of their first 100 years of freedom from bondage.
Clearly, the “jury of your peers” enacted in its pristine form by the framers worked when European men judged European men. The empirical data or evidence tended toward guilt or innocence. This is as it should be.
This system became skewered when Africans were brought before the courts. Often they were tried without benefit of other Africans being on the jury, as landownership was reserved for white men.
When white women came into ownership of land -- for instance, through inheritances -- the requirement for jury service was changed from the landed gentry to permit only those who were found on the voter rolls to serve on juries. White women were not allowed to vote until 1920.
For 13 years following the revolution waged by the Southern states, Africans living in America who owned land had access to the voter rolls. Yet, seldom were any called for jury duty.
Thus, criminal justice in America has from Day 1 been a system designed to protect the interest of white men.
Whenever African Americans come before the system, the races of the parties involved have always been the tipping point in deciding which side gets the benefit of the doubt.
For instance, Trayvon Martin does not get the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to walk home without being stalked and baited into fighting by a white man.
Jordan Davis does not get the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to disregard a command to turn his music down without being shot to death by a white man.
In each instance, a white man was the aggressor who initiated the deadly altercation.
The George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn trials are modern-day examples of how justice has played out in American courtrooms for centuries outside the spotlight of media attention.
Countless African Americans have seen this blind-eyed face of justice. They have had no one to stand up for them or anyone shinning a public spotlight on the mockery of justice that the system has presented in place of their right to trial by jury.
This leads me to two questions: 1. Is the jury system broken? 2. Does an 18th century concept in American jurisprudence, trial by jury, have any validity in 21st century America?
Surely, if Americans cannot divorce themselves of racial misconceptions and conditioning -- apparently formed in vitro -- a system designed to judge people who shared the same ethnicities in 1789 cannot survive the dichotomy of race and culture inherent in the new America created in 1865.
Sources:
Constitution of the United States of America
Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16591400-the-shades-and-sides-of-justice-jurors-education-color-and-navigating-the-law-video
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16586325-how-can-a-black-juror-not-see-race-in-the-loud-music-trial
Harold Michael Harvey, JD, is the author of the legal thriller “Paper Puzzle,” available at Amazon.
In the early 90s I had several months with not a lot to do and ended up watching a lot of Court TV. I came away basically disgusted with our court system. Juries can by just plain stupid.
I am not a fan of F. Lee Bailey but I agree with him on one thing he said. He said the American judicial system was flawed in that it often found guilty people innocent and innocent people guilty.
He said the military system of justice is better but I know nothing about it.
LOL!!! Yeah, old Trayvon was baiting into beating up the white Hispanic.
Who is this moron? And why doesn't he delve into the jury trials of the thousands of black-on-black murders?
That’s what it looks like.
bttt
Bullshirt. Did that clown even watch the Zimmerman trial??? No way could ANY non-biased jury say guilty with that joke of a prosecution.
Jurors in Jacksonville, Florida found Michael Dunn guilty of first degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis after a confrontation over loud music.
Michael Dunn fired 10 times into car loaded with black teens, ultimately killing Jordan Davis , who was sitting in a friends car.
Michael Dunn was sentanced to life imprisonment.
You left out the IRS....that’s beyond broken, it’s evil.
U R correct! My Bad.
Peers means fellow citizens not fellow criminals.
I suggest everyone take a moment to review the facts of his disbarment from the practice of law in 2002 for incompetence and malfeasance. From Findlaw:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1193317.html
(*excerpted - I recommend you read the whole finding)
Supreme Court of Georgia.
IN RE: Harold Michael HARVEY. No. S06Y0176. Decided: October 24, 2005 Elizabeth M. Williamson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, William P. Smith, III, General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
This matter is before the Court on the Review Panel's report and recommendation that Respondent Harold Michael Harvey be disbarred from the practice of law for his violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(I), 1.15(II), 5.5, 7.5, and 8.4 of Bar Rule 4-102(d).
In 2002 this Court suspended Harvey from practice for two years, see In the Matter of Harvey, 275 Ga. 28, 560 S.E.2d 646 (2002), and Harvey certified to the Court that he had complied with the requirements of Bar Rule 4-219(c) of notifying his clients, removing any indicia that he was a practicing lawyer and immediately ceasing the practice of law. Nevertheless, 18 months later Harvey was continuing to maintain his law office as The Harvey Law Firm and his staff wrote letters on the firm's letterhead with Harvey's approval despite a warning from the Office of the General Counsel at the State Bar. ...
...In light of Harvey's pattern of neglect in his handling of legal matters and his obvious disregard for the rules and ethics under which lawyers are allowed and privileged to practice law in this State, we hereby order that the name of Harold Michael Harvey be removed from the rolls of individuals authorized to practice law in Georgia. He is once again reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219(c).
Disbarred.
PER CURIAM.
All the Justices concur.
ping to post 31
I’d be interested in your thoughts about “J.D” Harvey in light of that information.
Wow.
“Is the jury system broken?”
Yes, but for none of the reasons described in the article, which is a whiny, worthless piece of garbage. I find it odd that these liberal whiners have absolutely no interest in or use for history except for the bits and pieces that suit their particular narrative.
We copied a very bad judicial system. Many countries in Europe have much better systems. In those, the prosecutor and the defense attorney BOTH have their first allegiances to the law and the truth, not to “win or lose”. The defense attorney is their to ensure that the evidence and law is fairly applied to their client.
Also, our system tends to select the dumbest and most pliable jurists possible.
Of course. I assume that means that ghetto gangster slimeballs, dopers, pedophiles, lawyers and community organizers don’t qualify as “peers”.
What was “broken” in the Zimmerman case was being charged in the first place
A political witch hunt is all it ever was
For instance, Trayvon Martin does not get the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to walk home without being stalked and baited into fighting by a white man.
...
I think the system that gave the author a law degree is broken.
Was the school above a barber shop or an oil change service station?
“Many countries in Europe have much better systems”
Name them, please. I probably will beg to differ as to each.
Oldplayer
So the author knows more than and better than the jurors ...
I think the author is a egotistical jerk - liberal - leftist who thinks that because the jury didn’t see it his way then they had to have made a total error... The Hubris of this ego maniac ... WOW!
“For instance, Trayvon Martin does not get the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to walk home without being stalked and baited into fighting by a white man.
Jordan Davis does not get the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to disregard a command to turn his music down without being shot to death by a white man.
In each instance, a white man was the aggressor who initiated the deadly altercation.”
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.