Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
I suspect the judge has already ruled that the issue of constitutionality is a matter for the Court, as it is a question of law. Questions of law are for judges. That is why the constitutional issue may not be raised in front of the jury.
Where it gets dicey is where disputed facts are in issue and those facts impact the constitutional decision. In that case, the judge would probably have to instruct the jury about the Colo constition and the 2nd amendment (as interpreted by the courts previously). The jury would then apply the instructions to the facts it finds.
But I don't think there are any disputed issues of fact. Both Stanley and the state agree that he held an unconcealed handgun in public. So it is not clear to me that the jury has any role here in the constitutional issue as there are no disputed facts that affect the constitutional issue.
As to the composition of the jury pool--every jury pool in every substantial city is disproportionately made up of Civil Servants. That is always what you get. So I wouldn't read any conspiracy into that.
I'm a strong second amendment and CCW advocate. But in this case, the constitutional issue seems to me to be a decision for appeal, not for the jury.
In fact, if the jury says "not guilty", that would have no precedential value at all in overturning Denver's ridiculous gun laws. Those will only get overturned if there is a decision by a judge that the Denver gun law is unconstitutional--either a trial judge or an appellate decision. (An appellate decision would have vastly more impact than a trial court decision. )
If Stanley is acquitted by the jury, there can be no appeal (there are some exceptions for this rule, eg bad jury instructions etc). Generally, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal. An acquittal by the jury has no precedential value on the constitutional question at all. Denver could keep on arresting people under the existing gun laws. But an appellate decision (even intermediate appeals court) would probably be binding precedent over Denver.
As I understand it, Stanley's purpose was to overturn the gun laws, so I do not understand his attorney's actions other than publicity oriented grandstanding.
Colorado has a very nice constitutional provision regarding RKBA. Much stronger than the 2nd amendment, although it expressly exempts concealed carry from its provisions. But it is dubious that, after 20+ years of democrat governors appointing justices, we will get a decision that actually applies the language or intent of the constitution.
Inventing a legal requirement out of thin air isn't "common sense."
I think that all legal requirements should be based on high moral integrity, honesty and equal/honest justice being applied. Obviously you have some demented measure for what constitutes a just requirement. My measure is moral integrity, and honest ethics and principles. What's you're measure? ... A whim pulled out of thin air or political agenda?
BTW the impartial jury requirement is not thin air. The sixth amendment, try reading it AND understanding it and you will see that it is not thin air. It's common sense applied and depicts moral integrity, honest ethics, honest principle and honest/equal justice.
More like that jury reached their verdict because the evidence was incomprehensible to them, having been thoroughly obfuscated by the defense. "We haven't a clue, so we can't convict."
Don't confuse your personal agenda with "moral integrity."
guilty for exercising his second amendment right!!!
SOME FREE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN!!!
No "except". That is what is called an affirmative defense: the defendant says, in effect, "yes, I violated that law - and because of circumstances and other laws, I am not guilty" (hence the critical importance of him being able to quote laws in his defense, and the outrage due the judge forbidding such quotations).
Example:
I frequently carry a firearm. One section of New York law flatly prohibits posession of firearms...but another section exempts me because of my carry permit. I could be charged with violating the "no firearms" law, and my affirmative defense would be that because I have a proper carry permit, another law exempts me from the prior law.
The Denver judge forbidding mention of the Constitution is like a judge forbidding me from quoting the law exempting me from punishment for firearms posession. In Stanley's case, the 2nd Amendment trumps the law forbidding his actions, and Stanley's affirmative defense is to quote the trump law.
Guilty people have to expect that.
So what is the judge, if he refuses to allow an argument to be heard?
No different from Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus. Both are simply exercising their rights in defiance of unconstitutional laws.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Sound familiar?
I'll tell you, Wacko, why Roscoe calls him an idiot. It's because Roscoe is safe behind his keyboard. I dare Roscoe to EVER call Rick Stanley an idiot to his face. But the little chicken-livered know-nothing has no idea who Rick Stanley is or what he's about, and Roscoe would never say that to his face.
You make me puke, Roscoe!
John Lee Haney did the same thing after building two machineguns. His case is now before the US Supreme Court, with a good chance of overturning gun bans everywhere.
Sound familiar?
You're being awfully kind to the OJ jury. How about, "Johnnie put the word in Fuhrmann's mouth, so we refuse to convict this black man, this Race Man, and we don't care how many beast people he stiffed or how many Oreos are on the prosecuting team"?
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.