Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
No person should be allowed on a jury pool for any case involving his employer. Since someone who goes against his employer (especially in anything that turns out to be a high-profile case) faces a non-trivial likelihood of reprisals for doing so, it is best to avoid any appearance of pressure or impropriety by having cases tried by jurors with no ties to either party.
Of course you do. That's the fascist outlook.
More to the point, one of the parties in the case has direct control over their payroll, promotions, etc. I really don't think there would be any question of whether anyone working for a private employer should be allowed on a jury of any case where their employer was an interested party; why should government workers be treated differently?
I could answer that but will refrain and let one of the resident statists respond as that is sure to be more entertaining.
Having lived in Colorado,I can assure you that there are a LOT of very good conservative people who live there. Unfortunately,few of them live in Denver. The problem is all the lefties moving in from California,Washington,and Oregon.
Because the prospect of losing their job (due to lack of convictions) would likely predujice them in favor of the state.
...and you, Alan Chapman, could...
I would convict if the initiation of force or fraud took place and could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I do not consider crimes against the state to be crimes. Crimes against the state are the recourse of the weak and envious for that which they cannot attain without resorting to violence.
Justice is served when a damaged party is compensated for their loss. Justice is not served when somebody is thrown in prison to please self-righteous do-gooders.
COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH
Facts
• There are 22 Judicial Districts within the State of Colorado, established by the State Legislature in 1963 and last revised in 1975.
Changes in District boundaries require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.
• As of July 1, 2001, the Colorado Judicial Branch has a total of 249 Judges and Justices: 7 Supreme Court Justices, 16 Court of Appeals Judges, 125 District Court Judges, and 118 County Court Judges.
This excludes Denver County Court Judges (17), who are appointed by the Mayor of Denver.
(District Judgeships are being added yearly according to statute.)
Thank you
From reading his posts on other threads I believe that he would feel more comfortable on another forum also.
Unless the defendant tried to introduce evidence that the firearm in question was of a type suitable for use in a well-regulated militia, It would seem his case would likely rest on Colorado's constitution. The question then comes up to what extent that constitution exempts home-rule cities from its terms. Perhaps someone familiar with the document can say?
Your anarchist bent causes you to ASSUME that
Anarchist HA! I'm 100 percent for honest/equal justice and the upholding of individual-property rights. What you propose is anarchy and is demonstrated by the millions of innocents convicted of breaking political agenda laws. That facilitates anarchy because those innocents would be productive members of society producing marketable values for citizens instead of costing taxpayers to have them produce nothing.
Actually, the actual Miller decision is pretty darned reasonable. Unfortunately, it is badly mischaracterized in the syllabus which has no legitimate legal value and yet which seems to have been cited by judges (and legal textbook writers) too lazy to read the actual decision. Indeed, I recall reading one judge citing the fact that the Supreme Court upheld Miller's conviction--a neat trick given that NEITHER JACK MILLER NOR CO-DEFENDANT FRANK LAYTON WAS EVER CONVICTED ON THE SHOTGUN CHARGE!
Essentially, what happened was that the government claimed that it could show (to a jury) that a sawed-off shotgun did not have any use in a well-functioning militia. Since that would be a matter of fact falling within the trial-court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court remanded the case to trial court to allow the government to proceed. By that time, Miller was dead (too bad for him he didn't have his shotgun!); Layton was alive, but rather than bring him to trial the government plea-bargained the case down to probation.
The Miller standard, should any court bother to actually use it, states that in order to be protected, an object must be suitable for use as a weapon in, or contribute to the functioning of, a well-functioning militia. The term "reasonable relationship" is a very loose standard, and just about weapon which could be used for individual or collective defense, or any weapon which could be used as a training aid for such, would be protected. What the "militia" language does is clarify that the term "arms" doesn't extend to cover every artifact that could conceivably be used as a weapon, but merely those which are in fact reasonably suited for such use.
If the government would actually apply the standard defined in Miller there would be no need to overturn it. To overturn Miller would be to state that the government was forbidden on placing any restrictions on the ownership and transport of aircraft, cars, aircraft, gasoline, bottles, ammonia, bleach, roast lambs, or practically anything else. While that might be an improvement over the morrass of regulations we have now, I don't think anyone would plausibly argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect such items.
Source:
Office of the Revisor of the Statutes, Colorado State Legislature
(e)Challenges for Cause.
Challenges for cause may be taken on one or more of the following grounds:
(1)A want of any of the qualifications prescribed by the statute to render a person competent as a juror;
(2)Consanguinity or affinity within the third degree to any party;
(3)Standing in the relation of guardian and ward, master and servant, employer and clerk, or principal and agent to either party, or being a member of the family of any party; or a partner in business with any party or being security on any bond or obligation for any party;
(4)Having served as a juror or been a witness on a previous trial between the same parties for the same cause of action;
(5)Interest on the part of the juror in the event of the action, or in the main question involved in the action, except the interest of the juror as a member, or citizen of a municipal corporation;
(6)Having formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action;
(7)The existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing enmity against or bias to either party.
I never noticed any lack of fools around here. There can't be enough leaving the state to suit me!
weaponeer
There's the problem, every Sociology prof of that era that I ever met was a left wing looney. It tended to rub off on their students. Or more properly the students self selected. Those who couldn't stand the left wing loonies, changed majors, what was left were a bunch of nearly certifiable folks, the type that had no problem believing three physically and/or logically impossible things...before breakfast.
Shouldn't that be "Abogado"? Or are you only pretending to be one?
The Mayor appoints a judge from the nominees to serve a provisional two-year term. After the two year provisional term, the judges must stand for retention election to serve a full four year term and face retention elections every four years.
Here's where I got the info.
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.