Not yet shed by yet anuther judge in anuther courtroom...



Uh, WHY do we have juries?




I thought it wuz 'cuz judges ALONE cain't be trusted ta be an un-buy-us type?



I DO fear the ignorance of the many...



...along with odder dangers revisitin' our courtrooms...




www.but-YOU-be-the-judge?.edu




www.like-they'd-LET-ya.edu




:(



www.and-TODAY'S-Google-it-Award-goes-ta-"jury nullification".edu

In Odder Words.........

I want u to know that no matter how much i try i just dont GET your posts !!!

What am i doin wrong ???

:@@:

Juries are often just as biased as the judges they replaced. Oh well, there is no perfect system.

Think about it: jury duty should be fun. Visualize the opportunity to sway the opionions of 11 of your "peers" through simple manipulation of what all witnessed in court! Exercise your civic duties, don't shirk them.

Hmmm, we got juries 'cuz we found out judges CAN be biased...


As a jury member, I'm asked ta ascertain the TRUTH about some mutter or other, but the judge ain't gonna allow me ta see or hear what HE don't want me ta see or hear...



No WUNDER I still prefer a quart of booze ta a court of law...




:(




Thankz-fer-every-buddy-respondin'.org


www.as-fer-red-askin'-why-don't-he-"git"-my-posts...I'm-gonna-ALLOW-that-question.edu



;)

I believe the true problem is that the judges 'steer' or limit the jury too much. Often times there is a destinct difference between laws and justice, and the judge goes out of his way, I feel, to ensure the letter is followed rather than the thought behind it. An example might be those who are absolutely known to commit a crime, yet get off due to technicality. (spl?)

Originally posted by 007
I believe the true problem is that the judges 'steer' or limit the jury too much. Often times there is a destinct difference between laws and justice, and the judge goes out of his way, I feel, to ensure the letter is followed rather than the thought behind it. An example might be those who are absolutely known to commit a crime, yet get off due to technicality. (spl?)

But the problem is if the judge starts reading his own little biases into the law as an attempt to accomplish what he feels is justice, then there's not much point in having a law. People have to be able to read a law and act accordingly without fear that a judge will get them anyway because he disagrees with the law as written. It's also worth mentioning that the law is specially designed to let a few guilty people go free rather than imprison the innocent by mistake (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen sometimes).

"People have to be able to read a law and act accordingly without fear that a judge will get them anyway because he disagrees with the law as written."


As usual, Lionel, ya worded yer argumint skillfully...



Of curse, I'm a Lib who's kinda worried about what's Left of our... "rights"...



I alwayz felt there wuz a kinda "hole" overlooked by our Foundin' Fathers when juries is asked by judges ta jest determine if some LAW wuz broken, no matter how UNJUST that law might be...


And I pondered 'n pondered if I could ever actually make myself SIT on a jury knowin' as how present-day laws tend ta be written BY the Rich, FOR the rich?



I wundered jest how COULD the Forefathers not have FORSEEN such an evil?



Uh, they... DID...



http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html



"Jury Nullification
Why you should know what it is
By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.

But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.

In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.

Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.

American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution!

Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!

Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

Despite the courts' refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury nullification in liquor law trials was a major contributing factor in ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana prohibition laws.)

Fewer incidence of jury veto actions occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.

To better explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and routinely put it to good use.

About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.

We can only speculate on why there is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?

If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.

Why is so little known about what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today) inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held that jurors need not be told about these rights!

However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)

Today thousands of harmless citizens are in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects no one but themselves.

We need to be wary and/or critical of any proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote.

To find out more about jury nullification and FIJA call 800-TEL-JURY and record your name and address. Or call FIJA National at (406) 793-5550.

Copyright Mendocino College Eagle 1995
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited





http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html




http://www.fija.org/


"The role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country's founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties."

Okay that wuz kinda LONG, but not...


...WRONG, I feel...


Still, lemmee SHORTEN my point of few:



I'd be most RELUCTANT ta sit on ANY jury fer fear of makin' some kinda mistake!!!




I mebbee MIGHT do it on TWO conditions:


1) Seemingly UNASSAILABLE evidence that the accused jest HAD ta be guilty as charged...


AND



2) There wuz INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that...







...the accused is actually...









...a Republican!!!



;(



www.republican-miscreants-should-be-locked-in-the-trunk-of-an-elephant.org



Toodles from yer Odder friend...



;)

www oopz,again...edu



www. republican-miscreants-should-be-locked-in-the-trunk-of-an-elephant .org



Toodles from yer Odder friend...



;)

No offense, but this guy seems to be confusing the way he thinks juries should be with the way that they were designed to be. It's always been the jury's role to decide facts and only facts. It's never been their role to determine the justness of a particular law, although they certainly could vote accordingly and no one would really know.

By the way, are you saying that this is somehow a republican/democrat issue? I don't see that at all.

"It's always been the jury's role to decide facts and only facts. It's never been their role to determine the justness of a particular law..."--LionelHutz


Many thankz fer yer input, Lionel, but it would seem we are in somewhat less than full agreement?



http://www.actionamerica.org/constitution/y2kbor.shtml



"On the subject of an impartial jury, I will point out that one of the most basic principles of "Common Law," upon which our laws are based and which is kept hidden from modern juries, is the principle of Jury Nullification. The principle of Jury Nullification was described best by John Adams, our second President, who said, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." I am personally aware of an entire panel of 36 prospective jurors who were dismissed during voir dire, because one prospective juror asked if there was any law that would prohibit the jury from voting contrary to the direction of the court, as provided under the principle of Jury Nullification. They were dismissed for no other reason than that they had been made aware that they "might" be entitled to vote their conscience, regardless of the judge's direction. In fact, the process of modern voir dire has become a way, not to select impartial jurors, but to eliminate them. See the article, "Novel Concept" for more information about Jury Nullification and the courts"



http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/documents/handbook/downloads/anti-govt_handbook.txt



I. CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR JURY NULLIFICATION:

The Constitutions of Maryland (Art. XXin, entire), Indiana (Art. I, sec.
19), Oregon (Art. I, sec. 16), and Georgia (Art. I sec. 1, para. 11, subsec.
A), currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge the law"; that is, to nullify the law. For example, the Georgia Constitution says: "In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial.-.and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts."

Attorneys in Georgia and Indiana are able to request nullification
instructions from the judge to the jury and generally receive them, and are sometimes able to argue the law. Twenty states currently include jury nullification provisions in their Constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel and sedition cases:

Alabama (Art. I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Art. II, sec. 10); Connecticut (Art. I, sec. 6);

Delaware (Art. I, sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, sec. 9); Maine (Art. I, sec. 4);

Mississippi (Art. 3, sec. 13); Missouri (Art. 1, sec. 8); Montana (Art. II, sec. 7); New Jersey (Art. I, sec. 6); New York (Art. I, sec. 8); North Dakota (Art. I, sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Art. I, sec. 7); South Carolina (Art.
I, sec. 16); South Dakota (Art. VI, sec. 5); Tennessee (Art. I, sec. 19);
Texas (Art. I, sec. 8); Utah (Art. I, sec. 15); Wisconsin (Art. I, sec. 3);

Wyoming (Art. I, sec. 20). Of these, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota and Tennessee say that the jury is the judge of the law in libel and sedition cases, "as in all other cases." [Source: Alan W. Scheflin, "Jury Nullification: the Right to Say No", Southern California Law Review, 45, p. 204 (1972). This list has been updated to 1996.]

When there is division amongst the states on an important issue, trial judges often look to federal authorities for guidance, and such is instructive in this case. Modem Federal Jury Instructions (Sands, Siffert, Loughlin & Reis, Instruction 4-2) suggests that juries should be told that it is their "duty to acquit the defendant" if they harbor a reasonable doubt, however, rather than instruct juries that they have a corresponding "duty to convict," i.e., "must" convict if they are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the treatise recommends that
juries be advised that they "should vote to convict: if the government has carried its burden (leaving a jury to conclude that it has the authority to nullify even in the absence of a reasonable doubt) [and our own federal district courts agree on this prerogative of the jury, see also, e.g.. United States v. Will L. Dawson, and Derrick Termail Willis, Criminal Cause
Numbers: IP 95-0064M-01-02, citing approvingly Beaver v. State, 236 Ind.
549, 141 N.E.2d 118 (1957) to the effect that "Article I, Section 19 of the
Indiana Constitution provides that 'in all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.' However, jurors should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not act arbitrarily, capriciously, upon a whim or prejudice.] While logic would seem to dictate that a corollary obligation be imposed on jurors, it is reversible error to charge that the jury must explain their doubts ever since the ordeal of Edward Bushell and the Penn jury hereinabove.




[THIS FOLLOWIN' IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTIN', I THINK...]

HUGO BLACK, a great believer in the Jury system, used to tell this
story-Years ago, in the foot-hills of Alabama, a tenant-farmer was charged criminally with stealing a cow from his landlord, and was brought to trial.
As was frequently the case in rural America, the Jurors selected for the trial were acquainted with everyone, including the accused and his victim. Each juror knew that the farm's landlord was a nasty bastard who tormented his neighbors, while frequently treating the town's orphans and widows with
derision. By the same token, the tenant-farmer was the salt of the earth, beloved by everyone. But still, the evidence of his guilt was indisputable.

After the evidence was in and the jury retired to deliberate, it quickly returned to the courtroom to announce its verdict: "If the accused returns the cow, we find him not guilty." The judge was infuriated. His anger heightening, he commanded the jury to return to the jury room to deliberate —shrilly chastising them for their flagrantly "arrogant" and "illegal" verdict. Not a moment passed when they re-appeared in the tense courtroom to trumpet their new verdict: "We find the accused not guilty - and he can keep the cow."

The American Jury, Justice Black reminds his listeners, is effectively
omnipotent in rendering an acquittal. What hits home in Justice Black's story is the deeply held American notion that juries often perform an independent role in a system in which the people - not prosecutors, judges or lawyers - have the last word. In the end, if the jury wishes to let the defendant keep the cow, that is what will happen....



By the by, Lionel, I think ya missed the jest of my meanin' when I made a joke about Republican defendants...


LAW-ed have mirthy!!!



;)




www.thankz-fer-chattin',my-friend.org

As I said, the jury can do whatever it wants, as in it can vote not guilty just because it likes the color of the defendant's tie, and no one can stop them. I'm certainly not arguing that. But that's not their intended role.

Why thank you very much Odder, for that Hugo Black story, I wish more Americans had that sense of decency and justice these days.

Despite all of it, I must return ta say diss:



The shear ENORMITY of the robbery ta America's rights (NOT Rights) is ASTOUNDIN'...



Let us take up Lionel's premise that the jury's DUTY is jest ta ascertain if the LAWS (as written fer the rich, by the rich) wuz broken)...


Well, shouldn't we then jest go ta the LEGAL experts tryin' ta do a "quick 'n short" version of the law be MUCH more practical?


I still say we trust in the quotes of the ORIGINAL law-makers-- our forefathers-- who saw the EVILS which have now finally arrived upon our shores...




To trust in OFFICIAL legal "experts" is ta put faith in their NEW interpretations of the "law"...



Such as in California?



A guy is nabbed 'n accused of stealin' a bottle of liquor off a store shelf. ORIGINAL CHARGE UNDER THE OL' LAW ODDER STILL KINDA BELIEVES IN? "Robbery".


NEW CHARGE? "Murder." (Seems a store employee with a heart condition CHASED him into the parkin' lot 'n keeled over...)



www.gimmee-a-court-of-booze-over-a-quart-of-law.edu


:(




www. we-who-believe-in-a-true-democracy-are-collapsin'-even-as-we-peak .edu



www. and-jest-watch-the-wailin'-'n-tears-of-those-who-once-applauded-it-AFTER-the-fact .edu

Gawd, sorry!


I meant ta say that Lionel wuz tryin ' ta say America's juries is jest s'posed ta RUBBER STAMP whatever the "legal experts" say...



Our forefathers WARNED us that if we, the public, ain't ALERT...




...well, we could lose all our rights...



:(



There, done.

Originally posted by In Odder Words
I meant ta say that Lionel wuz tryin ' ta say America's juries is jest s'posed ta RUBBER STAMP whatever the "legal experts" say...

That's not what Lionel was tryin' to say . . .

"That's not what Lionel was tryin' to say . . ."--from some buddy who prob'ly knows



My Odder apology to ya, Lionel...


I shoulda said that's what I INTERPRETED what ya said...



:(



I ponder diss, 'n ponder diss...



...'cuz, ya see, I consider DISS so important...



Let us review what'cha DID say?


If I got it, uh, well, Right... ya said the jury's job has ALWAYZ only been ta DETERMINE if a LAW wuz broke?



Then some quotes of mine, 'n ya said sumthin' like, "Well, that ain't what THEY'S S'POSED TA DO..."



I could well be wrong, so give me a chance ta correct me thoughts?


;)



What ODDER IS SAYIN' IZZAT...



...the Forefathers knew EXACTLY what they wuz doin' when they established the public's right of "jury nullification"...



It wuz ta judge the LAW ITSELF, not only if some buddy "broke" it...



Now, don't have a cow, my friend...



I'd AGREE that the public (majority) can often be QUITE UNFAIR...




But then, that wuz taken into consideration by our Forefathers, who tended ta weigh evil against counter-evil...



Hence, a Bill of Rights, ta even thinks out 'n piss off the copz!!!




:(



Shall we put jest ONE of the MANY questionable lawz thrust on juries in the State of California (a.k.a the state of madness) which mightily TROUBLES yer Odder friend?


The charge is... MURDER!



Scenario: A guy goes into a liquor store 'n swipes a bottle off the shelf, then lickety-splits...



An elder store worker SEES him 'n gives chase...



Our aged hero collapses while givin' chase in the parkin' lot...



...'n DIES of a heart attack...



The CHARGE filed by the "people of California?"



MURDER...



...'cuz a death wuz involved...




:(



www. if-odder-sits-on-that-jury-it's-not-guilty,i-guess .edu



www. murder-in-MY-mind-must-involve-INTENT-TA-KILL,'N-THEN-TAKE-AN-ACTION-TA-DO-SO .edu



But, YOU be the judge, Lionel?



www. i-ain't-take-part-in-the-whole-charade, sorry .edu


:(



www. as-alwayz,ya-HONOR-me-by-takin'-the-time-ta-reply,though .edu



www.thankz-fer-chattin',my-friend.org

"Hence, a Bill of Rights, ta even thinks out 'n piss off the copz!!! "



Uh, drink enuff 'n even THAT passage may seem understandable...



;)



www. did-i-ever-mention-i'm-very-sick-'n-also-kinda-nervous-postin'-in-public-so-i-gotta-git-very,very,very,very....very,very-drunk-before-i-"cross swords"-as-that-Sparta-cuss-woulda-once-said? .edu



www.i-am-tryin'-ta-wrap-me-jokes-around-me-serious-ideas,so-i-hope-ya-don't-give-me-a-bad-wrap,man... edu



;)

Originally posted by In Odder Words


Now, don't have a cow, my friend...

Don't worry Odder - I'm not offended. :)

I was saying that it's the jury's role to determine the facts of what happened, which is close, but not the same as determining if a law was broken. I shall demonstrate . . .
Originally posted by In Odder Words

Scenario: A guy goes into a liquor store 'n swipes a bottle off the shelf, then lickety-splits...



An elder store worker SEES him 'n gives chase...



Our aged hero collapses while givin' chase in the parkin' lot...



...'n DIES of a heart attack...



The CHARGE filed by the "people of California?"



MURDER...





OK, here's what would happen in this scenario. Mr. O. Verzealous, the prosecuter, brings a murder charge against the robber. The judge, being the determiner of the law, decides that the murder charge cannot be supported by any of the evidence the prosecution plans to introduce and dismisses the murder count, or possibly reduces it to a count of manslaughter, which doesn't require intent to kill. When the jury is ready to deliberate, the judge issues jury instructions delineating what specific actions by the robber would need to be committed in order to find that manslaughter occurred. The jury then deliberates to decide amongst themselves whether each of those actions were committed. If not - not guilty. If so - guilty of manslaughter.

So it was the judge that determined the law - what possible charges the defendant could or could not be brought up on, and the jury determined whether the necessary actions occured - the facts. Which isn't to say that the jury couldn't ignore clear evidence that the actions occurred in order to get in a little jury nulification, but if the judge is doing his job they shouldn't have to.

Lionel, I, in fact, DO like chattin' with ya...


...that's why I singled ya out earlier fer the same...



;)



Lisa: we still think you're STEWPID, Odder! But there's sumthin' ABOUT you...


Mark: Shut up, Lisa!



Odder: Anywayz, Lionel, ya couldn't have picked an ODDER conversant ta "jaw" with...



;)



Now, as ta YER scenario, my friend? The CHANCES of gittin' a REASONABLE JUDGE?!?



Perhapz, uh, less than...



...FAIR...



...if ya ain't got no money...




www. it-used-ta-be-DIFFERENT-before-unfair-judges-started-gittin'-so-Right-,Right,Right,so-much-of-the-time .edu



www. the-only-defense-we-HAVE-against-the-rich's-concept-of-"just US!"-in-a-court-of-law? .edu



www. the-right-of-"jury nullification"...along-with-the-bill-of-rights-ta-make-sure-even-THAT-don't-go-too-far .edu



www. jest-an-Odder-point-of-few-these-days,of-course .edu



www.heck,the-last-time-the-concept-of-"jury nullification"-ever-came-up-wuz-in-that-O.J.-trial-when-Awful-Sir-Mark-Fuhrman's-glove-hate-relationship-with-the-defendant-wuz-revealed .edu



www. uh,mebbee-like-O.J.,I-should-cut-'n-run-after-that-remark .edu



www.again,lionel,i'm-honored-that-ya-even-take-the-time-ta-chat-with-me .edu



www. there's-a-WHOLE-lot-more-i-COULD-say-'bout-what's-actually-HAPPENIN'-in-our-courts,but...edu



www. lemmee-wait-'n-give-YOU-a-chance-ta-catch-our-breaths .edu



:)

One WEE bit of a problem, though, if I might be jestalittlebit OBNOXIOUS...


YOU said:

"OK, here's what would happen in this scenario. Mr. O. Verzealous, the prosecuter, brings a murder charge against the robber. The judge, being the determiner of the law, decides that the murder charge cannot be supported by any of the evidence the prosecution plans to introduce and dismisses the murder count, or possibly reduces it to a count of manslaughter, which doesn't require intent to kill. When the jury is ready to deliberate, the judge issues jury instructions delineating what specific actions by the robber would need to be committed in order to find that manslaughter occurred. The jury then deliberates to decide amongst themselves whether each of those actions were committed. If not - not guilty. If so - guilty of manslaughter.

So it was the judge that determined the law - what possible charges the defendant could or could not be brought up on, and the jury determined whether the necessary actions occured - the facts. Which isn't to say that the jury couldn't ignore clear evidence that the actions occurred in order to get in a little jury nulification, but if the judge is doing his job they shouldn't have to."


But ain't that goin' back ta "damned liberal judges legislatin' from the bench?"



Y'see, I don't think I quite made clear what the State of mad California Legislators WROTE INTO THE LAW:



If a DEATH ensues fer ANY REASON durin' a robbery, such robbery shall then be construed as... MURDER...



It took ME a while ta actually stop shakin' my at head "No, ya couldn't have HEARD that right" ta shakin' my head at those who would think "Hey, the LAW is the LAW!"



:(



www. "jury nullification"-is-worth-googlin'-fer-those-who-wanna-know-more-about-how-TODAY'S-courts-is-tryin'-ta-keep-YOU-JURORS-ignorant-of-a-last-bitch-defense-against-tyranny-in-a-courtroom .edu



www. oopz,last-ditch-defense... edu




;)





www. thankz-fer-the-give-'n-take,lionel .edu

Originally posted by In Odder Words
But ain't that goin' back ta "damned liberal judges legislatin' from the bench?"



Y'see, I don't think I quite made clear what the State of mad California Legislators WROTE INTO THE LAW:



If a DEATH ensues fer ANY REASON durin' a robbery, such robbery shall then be construed as... MURDER...

Sheesh, really? There is such a thing as having a death that occurs during the commission of a felony being called murder, but I don't know that I've ever heard of something that extreme. OK, so if those are the facts presented, that would be legislating from the bench, unless the judge determines that the law is unconstitutional on the basis of the punishment not fitting the crime, or if he determines that the cause of death was just too far removed from the robbery.

I really, really AIN'T makin' diss up, my friend...


I first heard of this nonsensical law from some buddy I knew who worked within the California legal system many years ago...


I thought there jest HAD ta be some kinda mistake...



A coupla years after THAT, if I recall, the case (with which which I already mentioned... involvin' the quicker liquor robber) appeared in a local newspaper and it wuz explained that the D. A. wuz gonna charge the defendant with murder 'cuz that's what law of the land said to do...


The other case I'd heard of also involved a robber in a store who'd tripped an alarm or sumthin'... A cop responded 'n while walkin' thru the shadows of the darkened buildin', heard a sound, turned real quicklike 'n fired...


...killin' a store employee, instead of the robber, who he caught a few minutes later. The cop did the shootin', but it wuz the robber who wuz then charged with... murder...



There's TONS of odder laws in the bookz which ain't fair as well...



I'm content ta let the judge be the judge...



...as long as he ain't tryin' ta be the jury, too...





www. it's-the-concept-of-"jury nullication"-which-our-forefathers-gave-us-ta-keep-judges-'n-legislators-git-away-with-murder .edu



www. as-alwayz,lionel,thankz-fer-chattin' .edu




Toodles, from yer Odder friend...




;)