A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 6:38:38 PM)
A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt. They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana... No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce. In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul. Unable to seat a jury, the judge called a recess. On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom. “Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney. In what can only be characterized as a totally bizarre statement, the Deputy County Attorney called it as a "mutiny." K.

flcouple2009 -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 6:55:19 PM)
I have to agree. Why are we wasting the courts time with petty possession.

Charles6682 -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 8:33:11 PM)
I wish more jurys were like this.Good for them.It is a waste of taxpayers money and time that could be used for cases that actually matter.

blacksword404 -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 9:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 I have to agree. Why are we wasting the courts time with petty possession. Because they can. All this no tolerance just actually means no thought and no responsibility. My brother got arrested a few years ago for having alcohol and being underage. He was 18 and the idiot took the bottle of absolute instead of putting it in another plain bottle. They were talking about dining him and jail time. I told him to tell the judge you have no money, no job and no way to pay any fine. They let him go. Lol. I told him there was no win in it for the city so they gained nothing by locking him up.

blacksword404 -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 9:30:18 PM)
If things like this become commonplace they might end up trying to get a panel of judges to hear drug cases and bypass a jury.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 11:11:41 PM)
"told him there was no win in it for the city so they gained nothing by locking him up. " Cool. Actually it was patently unconstitutional to ask potential jurors that question, but they don't care. Just let this keep happening though, and maybe they'll stick to fucking up other countries instead of our's. And, thaat is EXACTLY why juries exist, at least in this country. T

FirmhandKY -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 11:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata In what can only be characterized as a totally bizarre statement, the Deputy County Attorney called it as a "mutiny." While this didn't even reach a jury, jury nullification is one of the most important aspects of the jury system. Most of the time, a judge will not even allow instructions to the jury that it is an option. In this case, it didn't even get that far. Firm

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/23/2010 11:32:10 PM)
"Most of the time, a judge will not even allow instructions to the jury that it is an option. " Not in this state. T

Kirata -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 2:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Most of the time, a judge will not even allow instructions to the jury that it is an option. That may even be an understatement. From what I've read, judges have often explicitly instructed a jury that if they find that the prosecution has proved its case it is their "duty" to convict. K.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 4:57:49 AM)
Yay for them. Having a lil bit of porch shouldn't be a crime. Hell, having a lot shouldn't be a crime....

Lucylastic -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:29:35 AM)
a 16th of an ounce? bloody hell, Ive had pocket lint bigger than that

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:32:59 AM)
"From what I've read, judges have often explicitly instructed a jury that if they find that the prosecution has proved its case it is their "duty" to convict. " Yes maybe but I might have my wires crossed here. I've seen this and more, but the prosecution and defense do not instruct the jury. The judge does. The judge probably should, but only concern that instruction with the letter of the law. I witnessed a case (1996 Ashland county Ohio) and heard such instructions. I don't have a judgement on them. It was a domestic abuse case. It was established that she attacked him, and he defended himself. I guess he floored her pretty good, and he got arrested. She may have too, I have no idea. What went through my head is why wasn't she on trial if she struck the first blow. But the way it is...... The instructions were that if they found that the defendant used excessive force, they should convict, if not they should acquit. Sounds reasonable right ? A jury of six, all Women. Should a jury be chosen, or picked at random ? And in some jurisdictions juries can convict of a lesser crime of the same nature. Like take the aggravated off of assault. Turn murder into manslaughter. Even acquit on the basis of self defense. But are they told that ? How many people really know ? Judges can also order the attorneys not to mention the Constitution, they did so once at least, TO A CITY OFFICIAL who was charged with an unlicensed gun. Judges can also include or exclude evidence, and allow or overrule objections. This gives them more power than most people think. So if you want to get lucky in court, that is where you go. In criminal cases I see alot of these discretions used in favor of the prosecution. In civil cases I can't say. But that is already enormous power. To exclude evidence is an awesome power, subject to aggregious yet insidious abuse. Yet this power must exist or we will have fillibusters in every court, claiming she was killed by Rabbi Eustace Tonto Smith, and her Husband with the gun and blood all over the place was a frameup. People will do anything, even use the Twinkie defense. So the guilty need to be treated differently than the innocent by the court, before their guilt or innocence is established. Catch 22. T

thompsonx -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:34:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic a 16th of an ounce? bloody hell, Ive had pocket lint bigger than that I hate smoking pocket lint[;)]

Kirata -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "From what I've read, judges have often explicitly instructed a jury that if they find that the prosecution has proved its case it is their "duty" to convict. " Yes maybe but I might have my wires crossed here. I've seen this and more, but the prosecution and defense do not instruct the jury. The judge does. Eh?? You gonna share some that stuff or what? [:D] K.

Lucylastic -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:38:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic a 16th of an ounce? bloody hell, Ive had pocket lint bigger than that I hate smoking pocket lint[;)] depends what you've had in your pocket [:D][:D]

JstAnotherSub -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:40:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic a 16th of an ounce? bloody hell, Ive had pocket lint bigger than that I hate smoking pocket lint[;)] Some times ya gotta make do with what ya have handy though......

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 5:42:30 AM)
Now that you all mentioned it, that's two joints, and not even fatties. They got it in for somebody. They are running game. You would probably find that much in my Mother's garage ! (I partially rebuilt it a few years ago) T

rulemylife -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 1:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY While this didn't even reach a jury, jury nullification is one of the most important aspects of the jury system. Most of the time, a judge will not even allow instructions to the jury that it is an option. A judge will not allow instructions on nullification because a defense attorney is barred from giving those instructions. Jury nullification is a de facto power of a jury that still exists only because jurors are protected from revealing the basis of their findings. Court rulings since the late 19th century have held that jurors are to decide based on the existing law, not on whether they believe the law is fair or not. It of course does happen, based on that and on other factors as well. What it comes down to is jurors ignoring the law in favor of their own feelings or beliefs. You cannot have an impartial system of justice based on that. Conservatives like yourself complain of legislating from the bench, nullification is legislating from the jury box. In some cases it does prevent a wrong, but in others it has defendants being convicted or acquitted based on factors that should not enter into a jury's decision. This is from Wiki but it is a good summary of the precedent: The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840), which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. he 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals]Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. In 1988, the United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification. (Jury nullification - Wikipedia)

DomKen -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 2:46:11 PM)
It is always wise to remember that jury nullification is what kept many Klansmen from facing prison for killing civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's. The rule of law is not something to be overturned lightly.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:20:54 PM)
"Court rulings since the late 19th century have held that jurors are to decide based on the existing law" Doesn't that sound just a little bit,,,,,,,,, fucking wrong ? Why is the jury there in the first place ? T

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125