Posted on 10/28/2006 1:26:56 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Mr. Movaje,
I am not a witness, and I am certainly not a defendant. Maybe you could share where you think our questions are tending? Is there a point you want to make? It might help if you made it.
Mr. Paulsen asked if lawyers and judges were not both officers of the court. I answered that they were different KINDS of offices of the court. And in the ensuing exchange have given lots of examples of how that is so.
I suspect that judges under Canadian law can give instructions to the jury. I suspect, I do not know. I further suspect that such instructions or directions are, as I said, mostly about the law and the relationship between certain findings of fact to the law, as in my fatuous example. The judge could say,"If you find that the defendant had marijuana coming out of his ears, then you can find him guilty of possession up the ear." If would be very unusual in the tradition of British law for a judge to be able properly to tell a jury that they MUST find such-and-such, and I would have thought that most judges would know that. Certainly the appeal judges knew it.
All my authority for this is that I come from a litigious family and as a deputy and complaining witness have heard a BUNCH of trials and instructions and all that bazz-fazz.
You could.
Your link goes to the Fully Informed Jury Association American Jury Institute. The court in question is in Canada.
I suspect that you don't know.
This is Canada, not the U.S. The judge refused to let two of the jurors be dismissed because they could not follow the judges orders, and sent them back to the jury until they complied and returned a guilty verdict.
And? How would he have enforced his order if the jury returned a not guilty verdict?
There is a strict legal difference between a defense attorney, who is by law an advocate for the accused, and a presiding Judge.
One is, as I mentioned, is an advocate for the accused.
The other is there to see that all facets of the Law are strictly observed. That would include the right of Jurors to judge both the Law and the facts of the case.
If you had bothered to click on the link I thoughtfully provided, you would have learned that this right attains in Canada as well as the US.
L
Poor you.
FIJA is active in both Canada and the US.
Jurors in Canada have the same right as US citizens to judge both the facts and the Law when they serve.
I know you don't like that very much, but it is true nonetheless.
The only humiliating blunder so far on this thread is you continuing to quite voluntarily display a rather alarming level of ignorance.
L
That wasn't an option. See posts 6 and 19. He sent them back until they complied.
Ahem.
"Fully Informed Jury Association American Jury Institute"
He sent them back until they complied.
How would he have enforced his order if the jury returned a not guilty verdict?
Try actually perusing the website.
It might help to keep you from looking as foolish as you do. Nothing could prevent that entirely of course, but as they say every little bit helps.
Best of luck.
L
The jury complied with the judge's order. Speculation about something that didn't happen is useless. The jury complied with the judge's order. The defendent therefore didn't get a fair jury deliberation as required by Canadian law. The jury complied with the judge's order.
Keep begging, quoteless one.
Your speculation about the supposed enforceability of his guilty verdict is indeed useless.
L
Keep begging, quoteless one.
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.