The 2d CA , as I mentioned previously was very involved, and after its first decision upholding Greer in 2001, it subsequently sent the case back to Greer after a subsequent appeal, and again heard "new evidence" from the Schindlers in October 2001 whereupon it directed a 5 doctor review. After that, in 2003 the chief justice of the 2d CA ordered the guardian ad litem to prepare a report, which as we all know was favorable to both Greer and Michael Schiavo. So in this case at least, the appeals court was quite active.
I would further posit that, in many cases, the idea of having ordinary people look at evidence and decide what they think of it is not usually called "mob justice", but rather a "jury trial"
The question was posed as "what do you do with a judge when most people disagree", which would be polls or mob rule. In any case, the guardian ad litem certainly would fall into your category of ordinary and independent people. So why should a jury find any differently?
Nonetheless, a group of 12 jurors is less likely to consist entirely of people who can't smell a rat than a 'group' of one judge.
You mean like the O.J. or Robert Blake juries? But in any case, if states so believe, then state laws should be changed to reflect a need for jury trials when dealing with evil judges. But in no case should the federal government be involved.
Did the appeals court hear evidence, or did it simply direct Greer to do so?
I would further posit that, in many cases, the idea of having ordinary people look at evidence and decide what they think of it is not usually called "mob justice", but rather a "jury trial"
The question was posed as "what do you do with a judge when most people disagree", which would be polls or mob rule. In any case, the guardian ad litem certainly would fall into your category of ordinary and independent people. So why should a jury find any differently?
In part because a jury consists of twelve people, and if even one of them smells a rat that person may convince the other eleven.
Nonetheless, a group of 12 jurors is less likely to consist entirely of people who can't smell a rat than a 'group' of one judge.
You mean like the O.J. or Robert Blake juries? But in any case, if states so believe, then state laws should be changed to reflect a need for jury trials when dealing with evil judges. But in no case should the federal government be involved.
If one juror can convince the rest that there is a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt, the jury is supposed to acquit even if all the jurors are 90% certain the accused committed the crime. Whether or not you think that should be the case, that is clearly the design intention of the jury system and I see no reason to believe it did not work as intended in the cited cases.