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.
Why'd you ask me to do it when obviously you already did.
I don't care what a biased webblog says about the presumption of innocence. I watched a judge instruct a jury regarding the presumption of innocence in a DWI case. It exists.
Those are the words of freedom-hating statists and tyrants..
They have a display in Andrews Texas courthouse parking lot too.
And I never suggested that. What is drunk is up to interpretation. If your friends at MADD had their way Listerine mouthwash would land drivers in jail.
The right to travel freely in society unmolested by authorities for no reason is guaranteed by the Constitution. Checkpoints, like abortion and slavery and other legal abominations "upheld by courts" will some day be banished to history -- hopefully someday soon.
This may be true, but neither does anyone have the "liberty interest" to run you off the road, kidnap you, toss you into a cage, and hand you a huge bill just for BEING drunk at the wheel - providing, of course, there is no actual damage.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when it is a term of your drivers license that you will submit to a breath screening test when asked. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
Driving is a right. The fact that "the state" declares driving to be a privilege - and forces us to consent to all kinds of unconstitutional harassment - does not make it so.
nothing short of lengthy prison sentences will stop them from drinking and driving.
Again, if there was no victim, then putting a driver in prison simply for being drunk is kidnapping.
This may be true, but neither does anyone have the "liberty interest" to run you off the road, kidnap you, toss you into a cage, and hand you a huge bill just for BEING drunk at the wheel - providing, of course, there is no actual damage.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when it is a term of your drivers license that you will submit to a breath screening test when asked. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
Driving is a right. The fact that "the state" declares driving to be a privilege - and forces us to consent to all kinds of unconstitutional harassment - does not make it so.
nothing short of lengthy prison sentences will stop them from drinking and driving.
Again, if there was no victim, then putting a driver in prison simply for being drunk is kidnapping.
Excellent post.
If I'm insane, then welcome to the asylum. My views are not unique here.
So...you don't want the government in your car, but you do want the government in your body. Interesting.
Looks like an attempt at jury tampering to me.
The "biased weblog" tells you what the law says.
umm no...I don't want government in my body either - kook.
of course, not YOUR body...but women's bodies.
You're wrong.
I watched a judge jail a defense attorney for suggesting that the judge should be sworn in if he was going to testify in the form of giving a jury instructions, if he would not tell the jury that they also had the duty and obligation to decide the law, in addition to the facts.
I don't serve on juries anymore because of that.
I think they mis-spelled her name so I made a modest correction.
The fact you don't like the definition does not change it at all.
Hey gang, over here. We're talking about government checkponts.
Juries most certainly do not have the duty to decide the law. They must decide the facts based upon the law as given to them by the judge. Your defense lawyer's argument was completely specious.
I forgot to add hypocrite at the end of my last post to you.
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.