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. |
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.