MADD display spurs quiz of jurors in DUI cases

Arizona Daily Star ^ | 12/7/05 | Kim Smith

[elkfersupper]

An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.

MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.

At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.

The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.

Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.

Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.

"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.

[jaguaretype]

I will dissect this. I take none of this at face value.

I'll need some time to go through and note sources and whether they are in fact simple filings or actually hold weight as court decrees.

No bones thrown to you from me until I perform due diligence.

[jaguaretype]

"You an expert in PA law, are you?"

Cite your proof....I am tired of your non-substatiated innuendo.

At least JTM has some interesting data to look at.

[jaguaretype]

Ray....let me help you to understand this......Amendments to the Constitution to reflect changes in Society. For instance....2 year olds cannot buy guns via amended law but they certainly are not restricted Constitutionally from owning guns given to them.

Drinking laws are state laws tacked onto exactly ZERO DIRECT reference to the Constitution......you, Ray have EXACTLY ZERO mandated or noted right in the Constitution to drink either. The Constitution does not cover the minutiae of life such as whether certain people can or can't drive cars or own guns. Someone could challenge drinking laws if they so choose and it would be up to the courts to render their decision based on the courts interpretation of other laws, etc... and couple that with their interpretation of the interest of societies well being.

"Rights and responsibility cannot be separated."

False.....a 2 year old has Constitutional rights....heck a 2 hour old has those same rights and they have ZERO responsibility to anyone or anything to maintain those rights.

Are you just so dense you cannot see that fact? Does it help if I add in the word "basic" just so you don't go off on some tangent about criminals losing their rights or something else????

"...how can you so frivolously take them away from people in order ....when 98 of 100 that you....."

Gee Ray, I though I was clear that I view the C/P as no more an inconvenience as a long stoplight. You view being asked "have you had anything to drink tonight" as a strip search. Talk about losing perspective. I bet all of us have gone through these at some time and just a few of you with history or attitudes just pass right thru. Just like the stoplight. Since you see some nefarious intent I'm just curious if you have driven on Interstate hiways (and many State hiways as well) and noted the little cameras mounted on light standards. THIS intrusion of privacy scares me ....... but yet you whine about investigative tactics used to combat a very deadly problem. As for the 98% (and I can't recall where you came up with that figure so who knows if it is accurate at all.....considering the reporting source as you I question it on it's face...but do provide that if you wish to continue using that number)...where was I?..as for the 98%, their rights are "infringed" upon in a far lesser way than the passengers being led out of the plane in Florida last week were infringed on by being detained and finally having to obey the officers commands and come out of the plane single file with hands on head.

All LEGAL tactics and alot more embarrassing than a moment at a checkpoint!!!!!!!!!

I'm really getting tired of reiterating NINE FRICKEN ways how absurd your contentions are so just deal with it!!!!


"What's your position on guns in the hands of us ordinary (non government officials) people?"

Well, this is not the thread topic but I assume you refer to the Wackcase bird militia member and his comment re: 2nd Amend rights.

NRA member and appropriately armed, Ray. So do you believe it should be ok for the general public to carry a 45 into the White House? Senate Chambers? Commercial Aircraft (I personally have no problem with carrying on any Public Conveyance other than planes due to the catastrophic damage which could occur if the plane's fuselage is breached)? If a 45 is ok how about a SAR? Or maybe an rpg?
Where might be the limit if any? Really Ray, I don't mean this facetiously..I doubt you have a legal SAR or RPG..are there any limits?

I've got to look into the other guys stuff tonight so I'm not going to spend time on you.

"I know that my existence bothers you,..." No Ray, really your existence doesn't bother me at all.......you just need reforming......and you are a fine little project:)

[Muzzle_em]

I never had a wreck and never got a DUI but sure drove D-R-U-N-K many times in my 20's! They say God protects children and drunk people (you know the drunk driver usually survives the car wreck). God protected me many times. I'm SO thankful I didn't hurt anyone or kill myself. I was an idiot to get behind the wheel!

I wish there was an effective way to get this message across to young people who love to party. In my late 20's 3 girlfriends and I would go out partying and we always took turns being the designated driver.

Rarely drink at all now.

[jaguaretype]

The implied consent is before the actual arrest....although it (via testing) may lead to the arrest.

It seems your issue is with implied consent then and not the actual arrest correct? I cannot follow the line of though wrt unsolved DUI as related to I/C you mentioned so pls clarify that or dismiss it and advise of your true issue.

[Muzzle_em]

I had a friend who was DUI and he passed out, ran off the road, flipped and hit a tree. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was thrown into the back of his Chevette. When he woke up, the car was completely crushed, all except for the little area containing him, curled up in a tight fetal position. Don't think he ever drove drunk after that!

[jaguaretype]

Sorry JTN but my review of "U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING IS A RIGHT”" is a blogsite type of location where citations such as this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

refer to citizens conducting business for private gain on hiways and uses the term "right" in the colloquial or common manner....that is clear. Context seems to be lost on the author and in fact that is the ONLY "State v anybody" case cited.

All of the others either do not have working links or are Ex-parte pleadings, private party cases and whatnot. They are not CASE LAW. In exactly zero of these do I see any Court overturning any State's ability to restrict drivers via license.

Furthermore, if there were ever a Court ruling successfully overturning licensing requirements, States would be in direct violation of said law and subject to sanction..........which they are not.

The following quote indicates the bias of your proffered document:

"Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel."

The last "Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege" is nothing more than a Libertarian op-ed piece with, curiously I note, some of the exact same generic and indeterminate case citations as the above web-link.

I really thought I'd get a definitive Court Ruling so I don't have to go deal with the DMV anymore:)

I feel oddly let down.

LEXIS-NEXIS would be a worthwhile endeavor....my wife uses it in her practice but I'm just too complacent and sheeplike to go digging around for my "right to drive".

Good try. Thanks.

[jaguaretype]

Please note JTN....Case Law does not equal Case pleadings or dialog.

[jaguaretype]

"Constitution does not cover the minutiae of life such as whether certain people can or can't drive cars or own guns"

Actually I correct myself re: guns....I meant to say drink alcohol....I was thinking about your last thing in your posting which was guns.

For the record Ray.....the 2nd A of Constitution does address gun ownership so don't go off on a wild tangential curve again:)

[jaguaretype]

Post 289 is directed at you Ray.

[jaguaretype]

Another Correction Ray.

Someone like you might very well have the non-auto SAR....we'll change that to SAW.....I doubt you have one of those legally:) But who knows maybe you have FFL.
Take it in context Ray....remember....no wild tangents ok?

[Badray]

I had training in that area. I experienced just that type of deal and advised the dealer not to do the deal. We had to undo it the next day. We were lucky not to have a loss.

But I beg you not to believe me. Just come here and sell your car to a minor or have one enter into a contract.

[jaguaretype]

Don't beg Ray. You are a man!

Remember that....don't let anyone beat you down to the point of begging.

I guess this is your version of proper citation of credible evidence.

If that is all you got then I'm not going to address this issue further....

[Badray]

I don't know what's scarier. You as a cop or you as a lawyer.

Let's take this one slow step at a time.

1] Does the US Constitution apply to you? If you answer yes, tell me which article, please?

I will give you a hint. Don't spend a lot of time looking unless you hold a government office.

2] Can a law trump the Constitution? Can a law abrogate your rights?

Another hint -- remember the term 'inalienable'.

3] Can you tell me the purpose of the Constitution?

Final hint -- It doesn't grant rights or direct ANY portion of my life on a grand scale or in the minutiae.

Maybe with my help, you will gain some appreciation for liberty. Once we get these fundamental principles down, then we'll proceed with the rest of your lesson and I'll address the remainder of your reply.

[Badray]

I just refuse to do your homework for you. I didn't do it for my kids and I won't do it for you.

Besides, you'll learn mmore if you do it yourself.

[jaguaretype]

No Ray the Constitution doesn't apply to me.

But it does apply to 3 of my cats and 1 of my dogs.

I think I need no lessons from you on Constitutional matters as you blithely blow past the torching given to you earlier.

You giving me or anyone homework????

Snort, snort, snort,snort!! yeah, Einstein, that'll happen!

[Badray]

You've just exposed your total ignorance of anything constitutional.

Are your pets in the House? Senate? The judiciary? Is your dog GW Bush?

Quit acting the part of a jackass and tell me which article of the Constitution applies to you and your pets.

It's a simple question.

[jaguaretype]

The Constitution/BOR/Amends are all just a bunch of scribbles for distorted interpretation by your type to suit your dreams, not supported by Legal Findings or even common sense. I'm not part of your choir Ray and hope I never sink to that level as it leads to bitterness and worse (witness the birdman).

This thread was about MADD and veered to C/P and you've made no direct reference to that topic since who knows.
I'm not inclined to continue lecturing you on Constitutional/BOR matters due to your obtuse thought processes. You need HP and you don't got it so I'm going to have to let you go with just dismissive comments in the future.

All this keybatting by me to you is as though I am addressing the left front tire of my car.....both of you are equally able to take in information and respond in a cogent manner.

And DON'T beg me to return to significant discourse with you Ray:)

[Badray]

No problem.

If you don't understand and / or can't answer, it's okay.

If you want to assume that you know what I believe, that's fine too.

I do think that you should be embarrasseed for yourself by not understanding that the Constitution is a constraint on government and not on the people.

We, the people pre-exist the government and are the repository of power. We have delegated certain limited powers to the government and reserve the rest to ourselves and the states, respectively. Those powers are listed in the body of the Constituion.

The enumerated rights in the BoR are not an exhaustive list of our rights but serve simply to remind government of some of the things which they are forbidden to do. The rest of the amendments address what the government may not and must not do and what they may and must do.

No where does the Constitution proscribe what an individual may or may not do.

Is that such a radical interpretation?

[Badray]

Is this the first time that you've been on a thread that has shifted from the original topic to the underlying principle?

If so, you need to get out more so that you can handle it.

Don't fret. I won't beg you or implore you to respond.