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. |
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.