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'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Actually, this is a sickening but unfortunate part of the judicial process, yes the Constitution can be excluded. You as a defendent & your attorney cannot read the law/statute as it is printed on the books to the jury, you cannot read or refer to the Constitution as it is written, you as a juror cannot go out and research the case and any associated laws or discover anything on your own. The judge can taylor & restrict the testimony & instuctions to the jury in any manner they see fit, to how ever it serves their agenda or their supporters agenda the best. This is true in all courts. It is digusting and revolting more so than any crime, the justice system is a criminal entity within itself, serving itself, to perpetuate itself.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws.
From post #59, Zon wrote: It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Yep, you want to make sure you get the appropriate spin and talking points to tow the line.
Judge: "When I want you to have rights, I'll give them to you"
Mainstream media reporter or journalist to the reader/listener/viewer: When we want your opinion we'll give it to you.
Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.
Then I am left to conclude this lawyer and his client are hysterical.
That IS the proper right and DUTY of juries, as the famous and precedent setting William Penn trial in London showed.
Uh, no. Are we now operating under British law?
I don't understand. I conclude that the lawyer is trying to obfuscate his client's guilt (his client ADMITS he's guilty) by raising "Constitutional issues," which have nothing to do with the case.
Jurors decide on the law, not whether the law is Constitutional or not.
In Germany it was THE LAW to turn in Jews and it was THE LAW not to give aide and shelter to Jews. Would you say these LAWs should have been obeyed? And, juries should find people guilty and punished for violating these LAWs?
I firmly believe in Jury Nullification, a jury must judge the law as well as the facts of the case.
A jury is entitled to judge not only the case but the law itself, and they can throw out the case if they judge the law is a bad one. But most Americans are never apprised of that right.
Zon wrote in post #59 and #63: In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.
sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to: "Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws." Emphasis added.
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.