Posted on 11/14/2019 9:22:56 AM PST by Morgana
Exactly right. If this judge gets away with this, then the constitutional right to a trial by jury means nothing.
I am an officer of the court. If I promise to follow the judge’s instructions and then later to do so, I could be disciplined. I tell the court my convictions and I try to educate the jury panelists about their right to vote their conscience. I’m not going to lie and tell the judge I will follow his instructions. My usual response is “Well, that depends on what they are.”
That is usually followed shortly by a side bar with the attorneys and the judge saying. “Mr. Marlowe, you are excused.” Nobody has to burn up a pre-empt getting me off the jury.
Too many people are unjustly convicted because jurors follow the jury instructions and leave their brains outside the jury room.
William Orrick is just another Barack Obama stooge who is pro baby-killing. He is trying to push the abortion agenda. Barack Obama sure looked over who he picked well before proceeding. William Orrick is just a slob.
What is the sense in having a jury if the judge makes up their mind for them?
Umm, the headline is misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say the judge instructs them to find him guilty of racketeering.
I agree with everything you just said....like I said I don’t volunteer the fact that I have no problem with jury nullification but if Questioned by the judge or a lawyers in court I will answer truthfully.
I just said that is what it sounds like.
I am pretty sure directed verdicts aren’t allowed to declare guilt.
Only non guilt or liable.
This is weird because I can’t find this story anywhere else.
Ben Shapiro and crew are great but they arent perfect.
I do want to figure put what’s going here though.
Keep me posted of you find another source that might can help understand.
Well I mean there are cases where the right to jury is waved and the judge decides but i’m not sure about then turning it over to a jury to decide the judgment phase.
I cant recall that happening in my experience. Even if it did happen, that’s not a directed verdict.
Im pretty sure directed verdict can only be non guilty.and that’s when the judge tells the jury that THEY MUST find not guilty. The judge doesn’t just declare it so....
This case seems weird.
I have sat through many federal trials and never have seen this.
And I’m not an attorney. I just have a degree in criminal justice/law. Lol.
Maybe an attny here can expound . I could be wrong. Been many years since I was in college.
At the very least this isn’t nornal.
Trump: Pouring Coke on the pork chop since 2016.
I was on two juries for two different civil cases in King county superior court in Seattle. Both lasted around a month.
In both cases, when we were excused to deliberate and reach a verdict, the first thing I did when we were behind closed doors was explain jury nullification to the jury. This was in the mid-1980’s. The easiest way to wrap it up was to tell them this: The judge only has a right to ask each one of us, individually, what our personal vote was. He can’t ask why. It means you can find for one side because you didn’t like the way the other side combs their hair.
Of course, reason and common sense should prevail, but we can completely ignore anything the judge said. He’s not the jury. He doesn’t decide. We do.
“Trump: Pouring Coke on the pork chop since 2016.”
LOL, love it
Great work...too bad more people don’t think this way.
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.