Denver Judge Axes the Constitution - Update of Rick Stanley's 2A/Civil Disobedience Trial

The Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 Colorado Campaign - News Release ^ | May 15, 2002 | Stanley for U.S. Senate 2002 - Colorado

[Roscoe]

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..."

This wasn't federal court. States aren't even required under the Sixth Amendment to provide jury trials in all criminal prosecutions.

[Squantos]

Can one not "quote" the exact text of the same Constitution that gives the Judicial Branch their authority to alledgedly conduct themselves in such a seditious manner ? I only ask as I don't understand this process .....nor do I like it.

Stay Safe !

[Roscoe]

May be time to reread Claire Wolfe.

Or the back of a cereal box.

[sinkspur]

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.

No, the juror is to judge facts in regards to the law. He/she is NOT to judge the law. But, then, that's where we disagree.

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

Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?

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.

And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?

You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm not saying I like this law, but it's the way things have been in federal court since 1893, and in most state courts for nearly as long. You argue the law (including the Constitution) to the judge, and you argue the facts to the jury. It was different before that-- the judge would tell the jury what the law is, but the defense could argue to the jury that they shouldn't follow those instructions. Now, you can't argue that to the jury, although the jury still has the power to acquit for any reason they want.

[sinkspur]

Which is called civil disobedience. MLK built a career on it.

MLK's civil disobedience was built on black inequality.

Somehow Stanley walking around with a gun on his hip as a show of defiance doesn't quite seem the same thing.

[Roscoe]

I wonder how Steve D'Ippolito will do against Stanley?

Should be a good test of how irrational Colorado's LP actually is.

[sinkspur]

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"?

Attorneys can "strike" a number of jurors (I'm not sure of the number) during questioning.

Grant wanted to disqualify the jurors en masse because of some phoney "conflict of interest" claim, and preserve his strikes. Can't do that.

[tpaine]

The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.

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.

Nope, the defendant is asking the jury to just read & consider the constitutional law as it may apply to his case. The judge is not required to 'rule'. He may give his opinion, at his option. -- And, --- the jury decision is not binding to any other case.

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.

This 'usurpation' theory of yours should be good. Can you explain? -- Two bits you won't even try.

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.

I wonder. -- See my Catch 22 for the odds on outcome of any 'challenge'.

[Zon]

This wasn't federal court. States aren't even required under the Sixth Amendment to provide jury trials in all criminal prosecutions.

Use common sense. Oh I forgot, you can't go there. Nonetheless, as you read what I wrote: for a judge to have moral integrity and honesty the judge must inform every juror that they are to judge both the facts and the law as they pertain to the case. Admit it, you are deficient in the areas of honesty and moral integrity.

[Squantos]

Thanks for taking the time to educate me a bit.......

Stay Safe LL !

[Eastbound]

"If ya get time please splain how land locked Denver is being subjugated to such a court ?"

Will do. In the meantime, consider that all gun laws (those which infringe upon rights) are treaty-based and of necessity, must be tried in a federal court (admiralty jurisdiction) and can't be tried in a common court where rights are preserved. In these cases, laws based on treaties are elevated above the constitution and become the supreme law of the land under the mis-interpretation of Article VI, para 2. (My opinion, of course, as I'm not a 'litter gator.')

[oldfart]

Overturning them in the jury box is quite another matter.

You're certainly right about that, but like the rest of us, you're wrong about some other things.
The study of law is a study of the history of a civilization. The first laws are pretty simple, i.e. "Thou shalt not...," etc. As a people - a civilization - continue to interact, new problems arise that require either new laws or refinements of the old ones. Here in the United States we've gone from a single page (The Constitution) to a whole shelf of books - and that only covers Federal law.
Most modern court decisions rely heavily on earlier decisions, in part so there won't be a sudden, revolutionary new interpretation of so-called "settled" law, but mostly because the courts really don't want to go out on a limb and have to defend their decisions.
The question of jury nullification is anything but new and has been mentioned in a number of previous cases.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789.

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1796.

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902.

Regarding law and what some might consider to be bad laws:

"All laws which are repugnant to The Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442.

There are other instances and you can find them yourself... if you want to. On the other hand, if you're just trolling... have a good day.

[Roscoe]

Nonetheless, as you read what I wrote: for a judge to have moral integrity and honesty the judge must inform every juror that they are to judge both the facts and the law as they pertain to the case.

Cite?

[Roscoe]

So where do you stand on the Constitution of the United States ?

What does this case have to do with the "Constitution of the United States"?

[sinkspur]

I watched secret police drag off a peaceful veteran for excercising his rights.

They weren't secret if you watched them.

[sinkspur]

for a judge to have moral integrity and honesty the judge must inform every juror that they are to judge both the facts and the law as they pertain to the case.

That's not true, but you continue to insist that it is.

Accusing people of lacking integrity and honesty because they don't agree with you is cowardly.

[r9etb]

Good little statist boys and girls would trust in the issue getting bounced up the food chain to the appellates and supremes. Not those who love freedom.

You argue with all the logic and reason of a bumper sticker.

[tpaine]

The idiot Stanley turned himself in.

Idiocy. --- Not true at all. -- He deliberately violated the law to make a test case.

Now, one court already has, and further higher courts will; -- violate Stanleys rights in order to ignore his test case.