Jury Pool In Montana Stages "Mutiny"

[dross]

You do know that both the defense and the prosecution get to question potential jurors and to strike an equal amount of potential jurors during voir dire, don't you? How is this "stacking the jury for the state?"

Premise: It is a right of the people - the jury - to judge the law as well as the fact.

The State asks me how I feel about the law, then dismisses me because I dislike the law. This dismissal is not one of the State's peremptory challenges.

If the juror has the right to judge the law, but then the juror may be removed for the sole reason that he may judge the law unfavorably to the State, it's the State stacking the jury.

 

[96firephoenix]

now I just need to find a place where the people don't believe in speeding laws... no problems for me there.

 

[Bill of Rights]

voir dire: That's Latin for jury tampering.

Actually, Old French, for "to tell the truth". How is it jury tampering for both attorneys to strike from the pool of jurors those people least likely to judge in their favor? If only one side (either side) did was allowed to do it, I might agree with you, but you bring in 24 people and each chooses six to remove, how is that tampering?

Yes, I recognize that you were being facetious and sarcastic. It sounds to me like what's behind that is a preference to have the jury "stacked" and only in favor of the defendant. SemperFi is correct that both sides deserve a fair trial of the facts. Should not a person who says that "regardless of any facts, I'll say he's guilty because he was accused" be removed? Should not a person who would acquit (or convict) solely on the basis of race be removed?

What happened in Montana was that there were too many to whom the facts of the case were irrelevant... with which I agree... because the law itself was the problem. The people simply made it clear that nullifying it was their wish, and saved the cost of a trial by when they did that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

I think this type of situation will really become more common as our laws drift towards totalitarianism. Don't sell your old baby crib or you could be breaking Federal law. The Food Control Act will make it illegal to save seeds from your own garden. Leave your lawn too long and you could be sent to jail.

You don't have to look far to see evidence of unjust and unfair laws. Thank God this final safeguard is built into the system to protect us.

 

[Prometheus]

Law as presented by the judge.

Wow... just wow... You were paying attention when the lawyer wearing the black dress was giving "instructions" huh?

You've heard the saying there are three remedies in a Constitutional Republic: Ballot box, Jury Box and cartridge box? If you haven't, you have now.

The law, the supreme law, is the Constitution.

Jurors have a duty to try not only the evidence presented by the prosecutor (who is a lawyer missing the black dress) but the totality of the facts including weighting the Constitutionality of the law that purported to be have been violated.

What you are suggested is that if it a law was passed saying traffic cops had the right to demand oral sex in lieu of a ticket and a woman refused that the jury would HAVE to convict because it was "the law".

That is ridiculous. Just like a Commissioned Officer has a duty to not follow an unconstitutional order, jurors also have the same duty.

It is the final check of the people before resorting to violence.

The Senate just voted unanimously last night to approve the "food safety bill". Yes, every single one of them. If you think you vote is going to change anything at this point, you're smoking something a lot strong than the guy in Montana was.

 

[UncleMike]

LOL. Here's a prime example of what should be happening all across this country. The people called for jury duty refused to let the prosecution and judge stack the deck against the defendant. They just came right out and said they'd never vote to convict the defendant for the small amount of pot he had in his possession. Kudos to these upstanding Montanans! Now if more jurors would apply the same logic across the board on numerous "crimes". Let's put some balance back in the system.

via Facebook

Jury Pool In Marijuana Case Stages Mutiny; Won't Convict

What a dumb ass thing to say!!
For all of you people who are too young to remember, or were asleep during History Class in High School.
The EXACT SAME SITUATION occurred on a daily basis in many of the Southern States from the Civil War, until the 1960's
Juries of Peer, all White, would routinely refuse to find White men guilty of almost ANY crime against a Black Person.
Grand Juries of Peer would refuse to indict White Men for alleged offenses against Black People.
So before you Arm Chair Anarchists cheer the "Rights" of the People to resist "worthless" legislation, just remember that you may someday be on the receiving end of some other groups idea of "Proper Legal Procedure".
Just think Sharia Law in the US and you have an idea of what can happen.
And in case anyone thinks that such things can't happen here, just remember that EVERY FRIGGIN Society that ever existed thought that they were immune to overthrow and conquering.
If you'll read a few History books you'll see how that attitude worked out!!

 

[machete]

So before you Arm Chair Anarchists cheer the "Rights" of the People to resist "worthless" legislation, just remember that you may someday be on the receiving end of some other groups idea of "Proper Legal Procedure".

so quit enforcing silly laws,,,and the public wont doubt and distrust the legal system,,,and the legal system can maybe start to earn some respect again,,,instead of just being for attacks on freedom and collection of revenue...

Just think Sharia Law in the US and you have an idea of what can happen.

throw out some of the extreme stuff,,,and the laws favored by the hard right are REALLY close to sharia... some of the REALLY REALLY REALLY hard right even goes in for the extreme stuff like hand chopping of thieves and stoning of homosexuals...

OLD TESTAMENT law and sharia are pretty close,,,plus did you know that the english common law was built on or heavily influenced by sharia??? the english brought is back with them and mixed it with some other traditions from germany,,,and you get the common law...

people always say how were built on juedeo christian ideals,,,so take a look at the BOOK of NUMBERS and see just what those people want us to be influenced by...its pretty scary...

Im a New Covenant person...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Wow... just wow... You were paying attention when the lawyer wearing the black dress was giving "instructions" huh?

The one time I was on jury duty, yeah I actually listened to what the judge said and rendered a verdict based on the evidence presented. There is no more awesome responsibility than to take away, or restore, someone's personal liberty.

You've heard the saying there are three remedies in a Constitutional Republic: Ballot box, Jury Box and cartridge box? If you haven't, you have now.

Soap box. You forgot the soap box. And the quote is "We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." If I were going to toss around pithy one liners I'd at least make sure they were correct.

The law, the supreme law, is the Constitution.

Wrong again. The supreme law is Natural Law. The Constitution comes in second and frames all other laws at a federal level. Then treaties, federal laws, regulations, executive orders, and case law which instructs how laws are to be applied, then there are policies and procedures. Probably a couple other things I'm missing. The States each have a Constitution and all those other things that exist at a Federal level except treaties.

Jurors have a duty to try not only the evidence presented by the prosecutor (who is a lawyer missing the black dress) but the totality of the facts including weighting the Constitutionality of the law that purported to be have been violated.

You mean jurors who think the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional should decide the constitutionality of statutes? Wrong again. No doing so well today. 0-3 so far.

What you are suggested is that if it a law was passed saying traffic cops had the right to demand oral sex in lieu of a ticket and a woman refused that the jury would HAVE to convict because it was "the law".

That's so stupid I won't even address it other than to say it was a really stupid thing to say. You win the "I said the stupidest thing in the world" award for the day.

That is ridiculous. Just like a Commissioned Officer has a duty to not follow an unconstitutional order, jurors also have the same duty.

0-5. An officer has a duty to follow all lawful orders. Lawful, not constitutional. The Constitution is not the basis for determining whether an order is lawful or not. It established the Armed Forces and the authority for the commissoning of officers therein and appoints the President as Command in Chief.

It is the final check of the people before resorting to violence.

What does "it" mean?.

The Senate just voted unanimously last night to approve the "food safety bill". Yes, every single one of them. If you think you vote is going to change anything at this point, you're smoking something a lot strong than the guy in Montana was.

What exactly does the food bill have to do with anything? It's a strawman. Straw = Food for horses, cows and other barnyard animals. Is that the corrolary?

Why do you hate lawyers? Jealous much?

You have the words "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" above your avatar. Do you know what they mean? Do you know who said them? Do you know that he was king of one of the most oppressive, repressive, regressive, and barbaric city-states that existed in the history of Greece? Actually the history of the world? A man who upheld a law whereby newborns were thrown to their death for the slightest imperfection. Where slaves were routinely killed becase it was Tuesday. Where on one day a year any free citizen could abuse, torture and murder any slave?​

The irony befits you. Just as you quote that which you claim to be against, your positions on justice, the existance of law in general, and authority are diametrically opposed to the Constitution you claim to believe in.​

 

[level.eleven]

What a dumb ass thing to say!!
For all of you people who are too young to remember, or were asleep during History Class in High School.
The EXACT SAME SITUATION occurred on a daily basis in many of the Southern States from the Civil War, until the 1960's
Juries of Peer, all White, would routinely refuse to find White men guilty of almost ANY crime against a Black Person.
Grand Juries of Peer would refuse to indict White Men for alleged offenses against Black People.
So before you Arm Chair Anarchists cheer the "Rights" of the People to resist "worthless" legislation, just remember that you may someday be on the receiving end of some other groups idea of "Proper Legal Procedure".
Just think Sharia Law in the US and you have an idea of what can happen.
And in case anyone thinks that such things can't happen here, just remember that EVERY FRIGGIN Society that ever existed thought that they were immune to overthrow and conquering.
If you'll read a few History books you'll see how that attitude worked out!!

Cool, then you know that norther juries nullified cases against people who were brought up on charges of harboring slaves in violation of Fugitive Slave laws. Hmmm, I wonder if the cases you mentioned had a complicit defense attorney, a good ol' Southern Justice brigade. This is why I have never thought the race argument held much water as a rebuttal to jury nullification. Racial equality was at an all time low in our nation's young history and the system from top bottom was structured by slave owners and those sympathetic to racial inequality. It is more of an indictment on the time frame and culture than it is on the system of nullification. I think it says a lot that entire communities (pre-Civil War South) when they can simply turn their heads and not be bothered by these verdicts.

Interestingly, wasn't the solution to this "diversity", a word that is loathsome to many. Now, whenever there is a high profile case in the news, we are always given the racial and gender makeup of the jury.

 

[machete]

Why do you hate lawyers? Jealous much?

of what??? theyre liars and thieves,,,they make up law,,,they dont use logic,,,they think what theyve said before in other cases somehow becomes law,,,even though nobody voted on it,,,their professional school is a joke,,,a masters in spanish is a more difficult and respected academic degree,,,they keep themselves safe from competition with that law school and bar exam requirement...

i know many people who have no legal training that would make much better lawyers than so called---attorneys...

 

[Eddie]

of what??? theyre liars and thieves,,,they make up law,,,they dont use logic,,,they think what theyve said before in other cases somehow becomes law,,,even though nobody voted on it,,,their professional school is a joke,,,a masters in spanish is a more difficult and respected academic degree,,,they keep themselves safe from competition with that law school and bar exam requirement...

i know many people who have no legal training that would make much better lawyers than so called---attorneys...

Sounds like a rant by someone who has had his butt kicked by a lawyer.

 

[rambone]

That is ridiculous. Just like a Commissioned Officer has a duty to not follow an unconstitutional order, jurors also have the same duty.

0-5. An officer has a duty to follow all lawful orders. Lawful, not constitutional. The Constitution is not the basis for determining whether an order is lawful or not. It established the Armed Forces and the authority for the commissoning of officers therein and appoints the President as Command in Chief.

Here we go again. SemperFi has a duty to disarm American citizens if the Commander in Chief tells him to. Your liberal interpretation of the Constitution never ceases to amaze me. When it comes to protecting freedom, you fail.

 

[Hoosierbuck]

This thread had so much potential, but has become the epitome reason why I do not visit this room. You can not argue with ignorance.

"Originally Posted by machete
of what??? theyre liars and thieves,,,they make up law,,,they dont use logic,,,they think what theyve said before in other cases somehow becomes law,,,even though nobody voted on it,,,their professional school is a joke,,,a masters in spanish is a more difficult and respected academic degree,,,they keep themselves safe from competition with that law school and bar exam requirement...

i know many people who have no legal training that would make much better lawyers than so called---attorneys..."

Stuff like this. Does it foster discussion?

Nobody cares what I think, I am sure, but just felt like saying my piece.
Thanks.

 

[dross]

This thread had so much potential, but has become the epitome reason why I do not visit this room. You can not argue with ignorance.

"Originally Posted by machete
of what??? theyre liars and thieves,,,they make up law,,,they dont use logic,,,they think what theyve said before in other cases somehow becomes law,,,even though nobody voted on it,,,their professional school is a joke,,,a masters in spanish is a more difficult and respected academic degree,,,they keep themselves safe from competition with that law school and bar exam requirement...

i know many people who have no legal training that would make much better lawyers than so called---attorneys..."

Stuff like this. Does it foster discussion?

Nobody cares what I think, I am sure, but just felt like saying my piece.
Thanks.

You can choose to focus on the ridiculous, or you can read many of the carefully thought out and well argued positions that are also included in these threads.

 

[CarmelHP]

You can choose to focus on the ridiculous, or you can read many of the carefully thought out and well argued positions that are also included in these threads.

But dross, as you well know, those ridiculous comments usually drive out any intellectual content.

 

[hornadylnl]

But dross, as you well know, those ridiculous comments usually drive out any intellectual content.

I don't agree with that. There's plenty of bullies who shout over the top to get their point accross. They didn't all leave with Joe W.

 

[John Galt]

You have the words "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" above your avatar. Do you know what they mean? - SemperFiUSMC

Yes, I know what they mean and I LOVE the spirit in which they were spoken! As a matter of fact -

​

 

[Eddie]

You have the words "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" above your avatar. Do you know what they mean? - SemperFiUSMC

Yes, I know what they mean and I LOVE the spirit in which they were spoken! As a matter of fact -

​

Where is your Spartan's shield?

Spartan army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ocsdor]

Here we go again. SemperFi has a duty to disarm American citizens if the Commander in Chief tells him to. Your liberal interpretation of the Constitution never ceases to amaze me. When it comes to protecting freedom, you fail.