Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by 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.
Sorry for your pain and loss. Having said that, revenge is not worth the price of lost freedom.
What the hell are you talking about? DWI trials are held in front of juries all the time with a presumption of innocence. Trust me, I know. I've seen enough of them.
The fact that juries don't tend to believe DWI defendants does not mean that the prosecution didn't meet their burden.
Okay, we've all been through this before.
Define "drunk".
That's true enough - and nothing short of lengthy prison sentences will stop them from drinking and driving.
We were all in the same emergeny room. His face was pretty wrecked, but not anything compared to our injuries. I knew him. It happened in my hometown and he was a kid I knew from school. He had been drinking at the local bar. My friend's lawyer tried to go after the bar, but it was hard in those days to do so, I suspect it's still hard to sue a bar for serving someone who's apparently way passed his cut off.
Once again, the solution to all of society's problem is not to throw everyone in jail.
Attempting to influence jurors is a felony. MADD ceased being about drunk driving years ago. It's long since been a temperance league.
Nice Try.
Maybe you should ask the mods to take that away.
You know a lot of people have been killed and maimed by drug dealers and gang members walking down the street. What would be really great would be pedestrian checkpoints. After searching them, in addition to rounding up guns and drugs we might discover all kinds of tax cheats and other criminals. If only we had checkpoints everywhere.
In fact I'm not so sure I want to stop at checkpoints. If we could get police officers into private parties and homes any time we wanted, we could catch the drunks before they even got into their cars.
Raising the drinking age is one prime example. So is raising the driving age. All they have done is raised the age of adulthood, of the point where people make excuses for their immaturity and bad choices. ("OK so I screwed up... I'm only 25 - give me a break!")
Worse, they have lessened the overall years of Americans' driving experience, the one sure factor that improves overall road safety: a first-time 40-year-old driver is as dangerous as a first-time 20-year-old. Every unit of time subtracted from one's lifetime driving record can only increase the frequency of accidents and deaths. (The gun lobby knows this, which is why children should be immersed in firearm safety and trained to shoot "early on", not later in life.)
One may dissect this reasoning surely, but the point is that MADD has no interest in good solutions. Much like Jesse Jackson and his ilk, they exploit emotionalism and use the politics of victimhood to further their absurd and repugnant agendas. MADD's attempts to legislate and enforce nanny-state liberalism has done nothing but perpetuate their own existence and political power.
My guess is that such was their intention all along.
(Perhaps some forum member will be so kind as to post grusome photos of burn victims and decapitation, in hopes that our empathy will dissuade all reasoning.... That often works with voters and politicians. Not with me.)
Yes, but you missed the key point. You don't have a right to a trial by jury.
DUI and the Disappearing Right to a Jury TrialTrue, in many places you are still granted a jury trial in DUI cases, but this is now regarded as a privilege granted by the state, not a right.Ok, the cop said I looked bad on the field sobriety tests, but I know I'm not guilty: I only had two drinks and I've got witnesses. No matter what the police say, I can tell my side of the story to my fellow citizens and let them decide. Right?
Well....Not necessarily. This right to jury trial, handed down centuries ago from England's Magna Carta, was considered so fundamental to the framers of our Constitution that they included it in the Bill of Rights? Sixth Amendment. It makes no exceptions to this sacred right to trial by a jury of peers.
So why do some states today deny a person accused of drunk driving a jury trial? Why, for example, does an American citizen arrested in New Jersey have to accept the decision of a politically-appointed judge? After all, the Sixth Amendment is pretty clear on the subject:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
How did the government get around this fundamental right? Well, once again they started whittling away by playing around with words. (As the Red Queen said in "Alice in Wonderland, "A word means precisely what I say it means".)
It started some years ago when the federal courts decided that the framers of the Constitution didn't really mean "in ALL criminal prosecutions". So they changed one little word. They said what the framers really meant was that there was a right to jury trial in "serious" criminal prosecutions -- not in "petty" ones. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
So what is "serious"? Well, a couple of years later, the Supreme Court decided that there was no right to a jury trial if the maximum authorized prison sentence did not exceed six months. Amazingly, going to jail for one-half year was not enough to justify giving a citizen a right to trial by his peers. The Court added, however, that a defendant could have a right to jury trial "only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a "serious" one". Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66 (1970).
Well, what about DUI cases? They usually involve maximum sentences of six months in jail -- AND a bunch of other stuff: fines, license supensions, DUI schools, ignition interlock devices, 3-5 years of probation. And the possibility of even stiffer punishment for a repeat offense. Doesn't that show that lawmakers think drunk driving is pretty serious?
Inevitably, a citizen accused of DUI and (inevitably) convicted by a judge in Nevada took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. With all the additional punishment over and above the six months in jail, his attorney argued, wasn't it "serious" enough to have a right to a jury? No, the Court held: "Considering the additional statutory penalties as well, we do not believe that the Nevada Legislature has clearly indicated that DUI is a "serious" offense." Blanton v City of North Las Vegas 489 U.S. 538 (1989).
Hmmm.....Drunk driving seems "serious" enough to justify ever-harsher DUI laws because of the oft-mentioned "carnage on the highways" -- but apparently not "serious" enough to give a citizen his constitutional right to a jury trial.
We've come a long way since those historical words "In all criminal prosecutions..."
Read the link at #27 and tell me what you think then.
Every post you write proves how insane you are.
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.