Replies

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.
It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

Why? The Constitution, in amendment 6, specifically states that the accused shall, in all criminal prosecutions, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The only way that they could assert that there is no right for a jury trial is to have it be a non-criminal trial — and that means a civil case. But if it is a civil case, then the government is claiming to be the wronged party, and how was it wronged? By the attempted possession of ammunition? How can this possibly be a wrong against the government which is specifically prohibited on infringing on the right of the people to bear arms? Moreover, the ammount in controversy is not that of the shell, but the freedom to [attempt] to possess it, which the charging party says is equal to six-months of freedom… even at the ridiculously low price of ¢12/day this exceeds the 7th Amendment's $20 requirements for the amount in controversy* (¢12 * 180 = $21.60) which means he would be entitled to a jury trial.