"Let me say at once that this is not a case of a “slip of the tongue”, to be evaluated in the context of the judge’s charge as a whole. Nor is it a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations. The judge’s purpose was as clear as the words he used to achieve it. He evidently considered it his duty to order the jury to convict and to make it plain to the jurors that they were not free to reach any other conclusion. In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court."Much like the judiciary in New Jersey has ordered the legislature to return with a law permitting gay marriage, allowing them nothing more than the ceremonial function of determining whether or not it will be called "marriage".
Isn't the defense attorney an officer of the court, as is the judge?
Isn't the defense attorney an officer of the court, as is the judge?
Juror: Here in the — in our — in our group, we — there are only two choices to — yes or no, or to be guilty or not guilty. So . . ..Judge: Actually there is one choice and that is guilt.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada simply ordered a retrial (instead of the typical 9th Circus/lieberal Lawgivers-In-Black complete vacation and no retrial), I can't really fault them. I can still fault them because the perp was as guilty as can be.