Posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL
MIAMI (AP) -- An uncooperative juror has been replaced on the panel in Miami deliberating the case of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and attack FBI offices.
. . .U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard said Tuesday the juror had violated her duty by refusing to deliberate and casting doubt on the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“casting doubt on the law”
Three guesses about what this juror’s politics was.
ok. Conversely, if you are a racist or muslim, you can decide the law is wrong if it doesn’t favor your side.
Thanks for the info.
Now that’s something I don’t know about. According to one account I read, the juror is black but nothing was said about the defendants. You might be right...
LOL! Nitwit - every judge has the right to do exactly that, and every juror swears an oath to uphold the law no matter how he or she feels about that law. - it is called swearing in the jury
Try to study law before you spout off like this.
this judge should be kicked off the bench.
Never, ever happen. - Who could do such a thing?
That's the way it's supposed to be????
Morally, how is that any different from an activist judge who legislates from the bench, based on HIS conscience?
The only difference is where the individual is sitting, but the result is the same: Ignore the law and make it all about ME! ...MY beliefs of right and wrong. ...MY morals.
Jury nullification is EXACTLY as reprehensible as judicial activism. Both of them ignore the rule of law, replacing it with the rule of ONE, or a FEW.
The proper place for conscience and moral judgment is during the LEGISLATION of the law. Once the law has been created by those elected by the people, NO judge OR JUROR has the right to single-handedly overthrow the will of those voters or their elected representatives.
Nobody has that right. Nobody who loves the Constitution should ever consider doing it.
You sound like a judge, or at least a prosecuting attorney.
No on both counts.
Do you think judges and jurors should be bound by the law or not? Once you decide they should NOT be, then its just a question of who you ask, to find out which laws will be ignored.
It's completely different. Jurors have the obligation to judge both the facts AND the Law. That's been inherent in our Judicial system since it's very inception.
If Jurors were supposed to be robots and simply decide facts we wouldn't need them.
L
You need to read the posts leading up to this.
The issue is jury nullification, which is to say the conscious decision by a jury to disregard the law.
I agree with your description of what a jury is supposed to do, but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism. It's blatant disregard for the law in favor of one's personal beliefs.
You're exactly right.
but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
Just because you say so?
At least I explained WHY I find them equally wrong.
Actually, a juror has that right.
Jury nullification is the answer to elected representatives overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and the answer to judges who refuse to enforce those bounds. Even the SCOTUS has acknowledged it.
Otherwise, the jury box wouldn’t be included in the litany “Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge” axiom.
Jury nullification is the answer to elected representatives overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and the answer to judges who refuse to enforce those bounds. Even the SCOTUS has acknowledged it.
The SCOTUS notwithstanding, I strongly disagree.
Once that particular horse is out of the barn, there's nothing to keep jurors from ignoring the law for any reason they deem worthy.
It's all well and good to imagine cases where legislation is unconstitutional and has somehow managed to pass judicial review, and that twelve people could somehow CREATE better law in a few days than everyone else did, but I propose that there are MANY more ways for that process to go wrong than right.
Else why bother with such large, elected legislative bodies? Creating law with committees of twelve, chosen by lawyers, would be so much more efficient!
It's the same spirit as judicial activism. I'm quite certain that activist judges feel every bit as morally justified in their actions as a juror correcting an unconstitutional wrong.
Juries do not create law. They merely judge it. Many judges abhor the idea (as do you)that mere citizens are competent to judge whether a law meets the definition of ‘good’ law. But history is replete with laws passed by those “large, elected legislative bodies” that do not pass muster. Zengler was the first on this continent, but not the last.
What you are telling me is that you would have sent a slave back to be flogged to death for running away. That was the ‘law’ at the time. You would vote to send members of this site to prison if Napolitano and Obama manage to pass a law stating that members of this site are extremist criminals by dint of belief alone. And ‘judges’ like Sotomayor decided that it was a good law and upheld it.
Yeah. Law. Made by political lawyers, for political lawyers. Upheld by lawyers who golf with politicians.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
R.A. Heinlein
That’s kinda the way I am and probably why I’m no longer called for jury duty. I once told a court in voir dire that I would not neccesarily believe what the judge claimed the law to be. Judges are human beings and are just as apt to have wrong opinions as I but I trusted mine more than his.
Not when they decide to nullify the law. That's exactly the point! At that point, they DO effectively create--or destroy--law, by rendering judgment in opposition to the law and the evidence in order to sidestep a law they don't like.
It's exactly what activist judges do: effectively alter the law to fit their own ideas.
Many judges abhor the idea (as do you)that mere citizens are competent to judge whether a law meets the definition of ‘good’ law.
It has nothing to do with what the judges think! Do you believe the Constitution or not? The Constitution establishes how and by whom laws are created. It has nothing to do with whether or not a judge likes it; it's the supreme law of the land!
Does the Constitution come with an asterisk at the end, referring to a footnote that reads, "Except when you don't like the result" ?
Changes to the law should be made in the legislature. Period.
Bad laws? Plenty of them. Fix them in congress!
What ever failures have been made using the legislative process, there is NO evidence that a group of twelve random people will make up something better.
But history is replete with laws passed by those “large, elected legislative bodies” that do not pass muster. Zengler was the first on this continent, but not the last.
But, you seem to miss the point.
Once you accept the principle of jury nullification, you can't pick and choose when and how it will be used.
What if your jury finds private ownership of guns morally reprehensible? What happens when the jury nullifies self-defense laws and convicts you of murder for killing that home intruder?
It all sounds quite noble when the examples you cite deal with historical slavery, but those cases are history. Discussion of them is academic. What matters today is how a jury which could easily be made up entirely of liberal Democrats would use such power.
THAT is something that happens today.
I think the very fabric of our nation depends on the rule of law. Once you open the Pandora's box of ignoring the duly legislated law, for what ever reason and by what ever means, then you erode and attack the very principles that made our country what it is.
It's naked hypocrisy to condemn judges for creating law out of whole cloth, rightly demanding that the will of the people as enacted by elected legislators be held supreme, then applauding juries who accomplish essentially the same evil through different means.
Well, I can certainly appreciate the court's decision. :-)
Juries don’t create law. The juries are empowered to judge both facts and law. That is why we have juries, and not just a panel of judges. So your claim that juries create law by destroying it shows just what a massive stretch you need to make in order to claim that jury nullification is somehow ‘unConstitutional’.
No, one cannot pick and choose when jury nullification is used. Tis the beauty of the system. As for cases that aren’t too old for your tastes, I present Heller and Kelo as perfect cases where jury nullification would have been desirable. Heller finally had an almost desirable outcome, and Kelo is a disaster. And very little has been done to correct it, even after public outcry.
You and I will never see eye to eye on this. That much is clear. Enjoy the day.
Well then it's obvious that you have a ready made excuse to get out of Jury duty.
Just plead 'diminished capacity'.
You obviously aren't bright enough to understand our Legal system.
and lets say a radio station is brought up on charges they did not follow obamas fairness doctrine rules, that the station did not give equal time to a counterpoint view. would you vote that the radio station is guilty or innocent? lets say you believe the fairness doctrine is Un-Constitutional (freedom of speech) are you telling me that you would go with the Un-Constitutional law, over the Constitution????
how about some one in trouble for lets say refusing to perfrom a gay wedding, maybe a preacher is being sued, or a wedding photographer. lets say the laws says they cant discriminate, and they indeed did. however you believe that they should have freedom of association, and should not be forced into this. (ie the dicrimination law is wrong) would you vote guilty or not guilty (I’d vote not guilty)
More and more we have liberal Un-Constitutional laws imposed on us. If we belive the law is wrong, we have a DUTY to vote not guilty.
if more jurors did that, we would have less bad laws.
It is the right and duty of the jury to see if the law is right or not. to convict someone when you know the law to be un-constitutional is immoral.
dont let any judge try to force you to accept the law just becuase it is case law or the politicans imposed that law on us.
for another example, how about laws made by the judical branch (activist judges laws) in these cases, one can rightfully argue that the judical branch has no authority to make laws, that power is for the people and politicans to make. judges only apply the law, not write the law.
so you have a case where you must decide guilt or not for a law made up by an activist judge. do you go with the activist judges law, or do you ignore that law, becuase it was made outside of the constitutional constraints we have aginst judges making law???
It is a slippery slope when we prevert the justice system to prevent jurors from deciding if the law is right or not. that is part of the jurors job. that is one of the main reasons we have the protection of the jury system, to give one more defense agisnt un-constitutional laws.
we read of so many guilty verdicts for stupid laws, technical violations etc... too bad more jurors are not informed of their right to make sure the law is right.
technical violations of gun laws are one more example. how about the guy that technically violated the machine gun law, beucase his old worn Non-machine gun did double fire. Yes techinically his gun did indeed double fire (or was made to double fire by the feds) and there is no provision in the law for excusses like a worn gun, or bad ammo etc.. so strictly speaking he must be found guilty. a smart jury how ever should look at that law and say hey. this law was not meant to go after accidental mutlishots, even though there is no provision for excuses, it is still wrong. Id vote not guilty, even though the law was broken by him. the fact is the law IS broken, (as in the law itself was wrong)
the jury system is the final check to prevent abuse of bad laws on people. it is the final say in the power of the people to override bad law.
most if not near all judges do not want you to think like that. however you have a moral obligation to sort out if the law is just or not, if the law is Constitutional or not, if the law should be applied or not in that case.
with all the bad laws coming down the pike from activist judges, liberal un-Conbstitutional believing politians, and the like, you better pray he have juries that will look at if the law is just or not, rather than blinding following some judges order.
that is your moral Constitutional obligation.
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.