JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND APPEAL OF ACQUITTALS

http://newnorth.net/~rrsyre/verdict.htm ^ | April 14, 2005 | Richard Syre

[rrsyre]

The public scorns review of acquittals as an example of judicial disregard for judicial integrity. Laws allowing such review have escaped comment and coverage.

[rrsyre]

JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND APPEAL OF ACQUITTALS Richard Syre, Box 1505, Woodruff, WI 54568 715 356 5573 rrsyre@newnorth.net http://www. newnorth.net/~rrsyre/verdict.htm

Since November 10, 1986, Rule 29 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has permitted judicial review of the Order for Judgment of Acquittal to permit reinstatement of jury convictions or retrial. The Supreme Court supports such appeals making review of judge ordered acquittals reversing jury convictions permissible in all state and federal courts.

Historically and conceptually, convictions and acquittals precede judicial review. Without official consent to convictions there is no government. Good government depends upon the integrity of officials. They protect the power of the government to enforce the law from each other’s abuse by denying consent to convictions. Corrupt convictions and acquittals are crimes proven in separate proceedings. An Order for Judgment of Acquittal that is not a crime protects, upon the honor of the judge, the government’s power to enforce the law.

A government has no means of action except through the decisions of officials. Officials vote on actions according to an oath of loyal service to the State. Every vote of an official to agree or not to a decision is an ethical decision, true or not, to the official’s oath of office. The balance of power of officials to decide issues gives the government its particular form.

The public easily recognizes the legislator’s vote for legislation, the juror’s vote to convict or acquit, and the governor’s decision to pardon as ethical decisions that are not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court’s constitutional rulings as well as a judge’s Order for Judgment of Acquittal are also ethical decisions not subject to judicial review. A judge’s veto power over another official’s ethical decision destroys the existing form of government.

The one and only reason the Supreme Court, or any judge, has power to consider an issue in a criminal case is because the Constitution requires the judge’s consent to the verdict of guilt. The judge is personally accountable to the government upon the Order for Judgment of Acquittal as the only way by which governments can establish official agreement to convictions as the means of protecting government power to enforce the law.

Review of the Order for Judgment of Acquittal makes judges accountable to the higher court for false acquittals upon a false statement of constitutional law. Review of acquittals puts the judge’s power to make law to work denying the judge’s power to protect the law. The contradiction ethically compromises every judicial proceeding.

Nothing bars unjust prosecutions except honest judges. The Constitution requires their agreement to the conviction and accepts their pledge of loyalty in acquittal. Review of the Order for Judgment of Acquittal denies the constitutional worth of the judge’s oath of office.

[TBP]

Interesting.