Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Denver Judge Axes the Constitution
Update on Trial: Day 1
News Release - May 15, 2002
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 15, 2002 NEWS RELEASE Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 =========================================================== DENVER JUDGE AXES THE CONSTITUTION... [Denver - 11:30 pm] Sparks flew today in a Denver Courtroom where Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley is on trial for openly carrying a firearm in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The arrest was the result of an intentional act of civil disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 2001. After wading through the usual preliminary proceedings, Defense Attorney Paul Grant moved for a twelve-man jury. This request was denied by Judge Patterson who stated Stanley would get only 6 jurors, citing a Colorado Statute. Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room. Grant immediately objected stating the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Rick's right to a speedy and public trial. "A trial can't be public," Grant stated, "if the public is excluded." The judge countered that there wasn't enough room for the jury pool of 18 people and the public. After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom. As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway. After the jury pool came in and were seated, the observers were allowed back into the courtroom. During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department. Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time. During the selection process Defense Attorney Paul Grant posed several questions to this Police Officer. When asked by Grant if she could really apply the laws as explained by the judge, she replied, "yes". Then Mr. Grant asked her to confirm if she really was a police officer with the city and county of Denver. She replied, "yes". Mr. Grant then asked her if, "...when becoming a police officer, she had taken an oath to support the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution of the United States of America?" "Yes, I did." the officer replied. Grant then asked her a hypothetical question; "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction? Pandemonium erupted halfway through Grant's question with the City Prosecutor objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for attention. At this time Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson began to lecture Mr. Grant. "I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?" Grant replied that he did not. Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?", questioned Judge Patterson. Grant again replied he did not understand, and the judge proceeded to repeat his previous orders. He also stated that Mr. Grant had already violated these orders during the voir dire process when questioning the police officer. Grant objected to the judge's statement and replied, "Your honor I did not ask a question about the Constitution I asked a question about jury instructions." The Judge then asserted, "You did no such thing." Grant countered, "Yes, I did." He peered at his notes and said, "Here's the question I asked her. If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?" In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, "That's not the question you asked." At that point it was clear Judge Patterson was visibly upset. He began advising counsel that he was on dangerous grounds and threatened him with court sanctions. Patterson then recessed the proceedings for a lunch break. As Judge Patterson left the courtroom one Stanley supporter, Mr. Joe Johnson stood and addressed those left in the courtroom, "Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge." Two reporters from the Denver daily papers scribbled furiously and then bolted for the doors. The court reconvened in the afternoon and the jury selection was completed. The jury consists of 6 people, 5 women and 1 man. The court heard testimony from both sides including testimony from the arresting officers who stated they did not fear any violence from Mr. Stanley, and that he was co-operative. When Mr. Stanley was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused. Throughout the afternoon's proceedings lawyers, judges, and others who apparently worked within the judicial system were seen coming in and out of the courtroom for short periods of time. Testimony was concluded in the afternoon. Judge Patterson then recessed the proceedings to reconvene in the morning for closing arguments. More information concerning Rick's arrest and the trial can be found online at: http://www.stanley2002.org/denvsconstitution.htm . Previous news releases about this trial can be found online at: http://www.stanley2002.org/releases.htm Rick Stanley is the CEO and owner of Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply in Denver, and is currently seeking the Libertarian Party of Colorado's nomination as Candidate for U.S. Senate 2002. The convention will be held this weekend in Leadville, Colorado. For more information on Rick's campaign please visit his official web site at: http://www.stanley2002.org . Information about the Libertarian Party of Colorado can be found at: http://www.lpcolorado.org #30# ============================================================ Rick is available for media interviews about his grassroots campaign for U.S. Senate. For more information please call Rick at 303.329.0481. |
In this case, the "shenanigans" have been on the part of Stanley and his counsel.
Exactly the point here. -- The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.
ALL you who argue the states position on these fundamental issues are arguing AGAINST your own constitutional rights. - In unbelievable displays of statist denial.
Well, then he'll be overturned on appeal.
Except that the idiot Stanley has admitted to violating the ordinance.
I thought you could come up with a better example than this, but, I guess not.
Why volunteer this if you were not asked? This is shirking your even more important duty before God.
That's moral integrity. THAT'S honesty. I wouldn't hide or lie, like you apparently would, in an effort to get on a jury so I could wave my libertarianism around to make a political statement in acquitting a defendant.
You obfuscate the point. Sometimes you do need to "hide" (nobody is asking you to lie) in order to obey God.
From the article:
"Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time."
Could you point out to me where I misread the part where it appears as though the attorney was not able to "strike them during jury selection"?
Thanks in advance.
You rarely hear judges say it as baldly as this one does, but this is pretty much the law everywhere (and has been since a US Supreme Court decision in around 1890). Constitutional questions are issues of law, for the judge to decide; if the judge decides the law is unconstitutional, he will throw it out, but if he decides it's not, you can't argue your constitutional claims in front of the jury.
OK, instead of Jones, try Cohen or Snyder.
Catch 22. -- You can NOT use a constitutional defense in the lower courts, and the higher courts will not hear such appeals.
May be time to reread Claire Wolfe.
In my opinion, the shenigans are from the corrupt politicians that pass unconstitutional laws and the corrupt law enforcement officials and judges that enforce them. But I'm guessing that we'll have to agree to disagree.
In doing so, however, the lawyer is attempting to ask this jury, and this county criminal court, to rule on the Constitutionality of this particular ordinance. This is a power that is reserved to the Federal judiciary.
As such, the judge was correct to rule that issues of Constitutional law cannot be brought up as a defense in this case. To rule any other way would be a usurpation of the Constitution.
Now that Stanley has apparently been convicted, he has every right to challenge the Constitutionality of this ordinance in the proper forum. I hope he wins, too.
But he'd be a horrible senator, and he will deservedly be trounced.
No. I understand what the terms of my jury service require. If I believed that a particular law was unjust, I would make certain that the court, the plaintiff and defendant knew that during jury qualification, which would probably eliminate me from service.
Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance or incompetence or both. Get a clue, the jurors responsibility is to judge the law in regards to the facts presented as they are to judge the facts in regards to the law as it is presented.
Still, you admit to the court via the jury selection process that you should be refused as a juror because you don't agree with the law (not even interested in the facts of the case) and that if you were to be a juror in your mental realm of what constitutes a conscience you'd be doing the STATE a disservice by going against the STATE.
Ya gotta love it when sinkspur makes self-exposure so easy.
That's moral integrity. THAT'S honesty. I wouldn't hide or lie, like you apparently would, in an effort to get on a jury so I could wave my libertarianism around to make a political statement in acquitting a defendant.
1) I'm not a Libertarian. 2) I may chose to get on the jury to see that honest/equal justice applied and so that an innocent person doesn't become a political prisoner because he or she (the defendant) broke a political agenda law. The opposite of you whom fully supports political agenda courts.
BTW, honesty and moral integrity begins with the judge. For a judge to have moral integrity and honesty they must inform every juror that they are to judge the facts and the law as they pertain to the case -- which is what judges routinely informed jurors of up until 1893. Also, moral integrity and honesty requires that judges uphold the constitution. That means the defendant gets an impartial jury. An impartial jury judges the facts and the law.
Amendment VI: "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..."
Which is called civil disobedience. MLK built a career on it.
Or is that a reserved career path?
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.