No. I understand what the terms of my jury service require. If I believed that a particular law was unjust, I would make certain that the court, the plaintiff and defendant knew that during jury qualification, which would probably eliminate me from service.
Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance or incompetence or both. Get a clue, the jurors responsibility is to judge the law in regards to the facts presented as they are to judge the facts in regards to the law as it is presented.
Still, you admit to the court via the jury selection process that you should be refused as a juror because you don't agree with the law (not even interested in the facts of the case) and that if you were to be a juror in your mental realm of what constitutes a conscience you'd be doing the STATE a disservice by going against the STATE.
Ya gotta love it when sinkspur makes self-exposure so easy.
That's moral integrity. THAT'S honesty. I wouldn't hide or lie, like you apparently would, in an effort to get on a jury so I could wave my libertarianism around to make a political statement in acquitting a defendant.
1) I'm not a Libertarian. 2) I may chose to get on the jury to see that honest/equal justice applied and so that an innocent person doesn't become a political prisoner because he or she (the defendant) broke a political agenda law. The opposite of you whom fully supports political agenda courts.
BTW, honesty and moral integrity begins with the judge. For a judge to have moral integrity and honesty they must inform every juror that they are to judge the facts and the law as they pertain to the case -- which is what judges routinely informed jurors of up until 1893. Also, moral integrity and honesty requires that judges uphold the constitution. That means the defendant gets an impartial jury. An impartial jury judges the facts and the law.
Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
This wasn't federal court. States aren't even required under the Sixth Amendment to provide jury trials in all criminal prosecutions.
No, the juror is to judge facts in regards to the law. He/she is NOT to judge the law. But, then, that's where we disagree.
Still, you admit to the court via the jury selection process that you should be refused as a juror because you don't agree with the law
Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
I may chose to get on the jury to see that honest/equal justice applied and so that an innocent person doesn't become a political prisoner because he or she (the defendant) broke a political agenda law.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.