Jury Pool In Montana Stages "Mutiny"

[jbombelli]

Peers doesn't mean people like us that think like us. It means a jury selected from a cross section of society. Normal people not from the justice system.

Montana's Constitution simply states a right to a trial by jury. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution states:



In federal cases there is a constitutional requirement to be impartial, not to be a "peer", whatever that means.

Are we to ignore the requirements of the Constitution because we don't like the law, a law whose authority eminates from that same Constitution?

And when the cross section of society thinks like the defendant, what then?


Let's say for sake of discussion, some guy accosts you and your family at a WalMart somewhere (or a Kroger if you hate WalMart). He just walks up and, before you can stop him, he executes your wife and one of your children in cold blood because you weren't quick enough on the draw. Then, when he sees you pull your own gun, he drops his gun, says "please don't kill me" and gets to his knees.

If you shot him in the head I would vote to acquit on the murder charges. You really want to be convicted and possibly go to your death for that? That's what the law says should happen. You should go to your fate and leave your remaining children without a father. Sorry, I'll vote to acquit regardless of the evidence at hand demonstrating your guilt for murdering the guy in cold blood.

I'll do what I think is right.

 

[level.eleven]

Prospective jurors failed to execute their constitutional responsibilities.

By truthfully answering a question during jury selection posed by the presiding judge?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And when the cross section of society thinks like the defendant, what then?

Let's say for sake of discussion, some guy accosts you and your family at a WalMart somewhere (or a Kroger if you hate WalMart). He just walks up and, before you can stop him, he executes your wife and one of your children in cold blood because you weren't quick enough on the draw. Then, when he sees you pull your own gun, he drops his gun, says "please don't kill me" and gets to his knees.

If you shot him in the head I would vote to acquit on the murder charges. You really want to be convicted and possibly go to your death for that? That's what the law says should happen. You should go to your fate and leave your remaining children without a father. Sorry, I'll vote to acquit regardless of the evidence at hand demonstrating your guilt for murdering the guy in cold blood.

I'll do what I think is right.

Let's change the scenerio a bit. You see your wife's ex-husband who owes child support and called her a whore on the phone at Walmart. You walk up and shoot him in the head. What separates these scenerios? Facts, law and evidence.

OK, back to your hypothetical. There are several affirmative defenses that could be used to avoid a guilty verdict. In any event as a juror you agreed up front to render a fair and impartial verdict. You listened to all the evidence. You processed the evidence. You decided based upon that evidence that the shooting was justified, and you voted not guilty. Justice worked.

That is exactly as the system is supposed to work. You go in with an open mind. You take what you are given and make a decision.

By truthfully answering a question during jury selection posed by the presiding judge?

By refusing to be impartial and stating they would not rule according to the facts and law, yes.

 

[level.eleven]

By refusing to be impartial and stating they would not rule according to the facts and law, yes.

So they should have lied to the judge?

It seems in your scenario a jury serves more as an approval panel for state actions. Everyone knew the man had 1/16th ounce of pot. He admitted that. Everyone knows the law, that possession is illegal. If the jury is supposed to just rubber stamp what is already known and what is already law, why have a jury?

Hasn't Indiana actually codified jury nullification in it's Constitution - Article 1, Section 19?

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 

[jbombelli]

Let's change the scenerio a bit. You see your wife's ex-husband who owes child support and called her a whore on the phone at Walmart. You walk up and shoot him in the head. What separates these scenerios? Facts, law and evidence.

OK, back to your hypothetical. There are several affirmative defenses that could be used to avoid a guilty verdict. In any event as a juror you agreed up front to render a fair and impartial verdict. You listened to all the evidence. You processed the evidence. You decided based upon that evidence that the shooting was justified, and you voted not guilty. Justice worked.

That is exactly as the system is supposed to work. You go in with an open mind. You take what you are given and make a decision.



By refusing to be impartial and stating they would not rule according to the facts and law, yes.

In my scenario, you'd still be guilty of murder. Period. There's no legal justification that I'm aware of to shoot a man in the head when he's unarmed, on his knees in front of you, presenting no threat to anybody. You're not allowed to use deadly force when there's no danger to you or a third person. And what affirmative defense, exactly, allows you to act as judge, jury and executioner, and will result in no punishment, no locking up in a mental facility, no loss of rights?

You're not asking us to go in with an open mind and make a decision. You're telling us that right and wrong have no place in our system.


Personally, I could never vote to convict someone who broke a law with which I disagree, or if I think he was right. You'll never change my mind on that.

 

[machete]

Let's change the scenerio a bit. You see your wife's ex-husband who owes child support and called her a whore on the phone at Walmart. You walk up and shoot him in the head. What separates these scenerios? Facts, law and evidence.

OK, back to your hypothetical. There are several affirmative defenses that could be used to avoid a guilty verdict. In any event as a juror you agreed up front to render a fair and impartial verdict. You listened to all the evidence. You processed the evidence. You decided based upon that evidence that the shooting was justified, and you voted not guilty. Justice worked.

That is exactly as the system is supposed to work. You go in with an open mind. You take what you are given and make a decision.



By refusing to be impartial and stating they would not rule according to the facts and law, yes.

YOU JUST AINT GETTING IT... i dont do neg rep,,,but youve deserved a lot of it in this thread...they keep giving you the right answer,,,and you keep ignoring it...

-1

ps,,,where does a judge get to ask a juror to do anything except be a juror??? the juror is in charge of the judge... get it??? this entire system comes down to a group of citizens voting on what the government has done...or is trying to do...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In my scenario, you'd still be guilty of murder. Period. There's no legal justification that I'm aware of to shoot a man in the head when he's unarmed, on his knees in front of you, presenting no threat to anybody. You're not allowed to use deadly force when there's no danger to you or a third person. And what affirmative defense, exactly, allows you to act as judge, jury and executioner, and will result in no punishment, no locking up in a mental facility, no loss of rights?

You're not asking us to go in with an open mind and make a decision. You're telling us that right and wrong have no place in our system.


Personally, I could never vote to convict someone who broke a law with which I disagree, or if I think he was right. You'll never change my mind on that.

Just because you commit homocide doesn't mean you're guilty of murder.

Diminished capacity is an affirmative defense that wouldn't necessarily bear long term loss of rights. You just watched your wife and children murdered. You went into shock and blacked out. When you regained consciousness you found your dead wife and children and a dead guy on the floor.

So it boils down to whether you agree with a law or not. The circumstances bear no relevence. That's fine. You could have just said that to begin with and saved a lot of discussion.

BTW, I disagree you'd be guilty of murder. If the evidence were as you described in your hypothetical, I would vote not guilty as well. I would also work to remove the prosecutor who chose to bring those charges. What I wouldn't do is take a preconceived notion into the jury room. I would wait for the presentation of evidence.

 

[John Galt]

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[machete]

Fully Informed Jury Association

great site,,,out of rep...

this bastardization of the jury is why lawyers are no longer great thinkers or intelligent people ...and darn sure not the great orators as they once were,,,lawyers used to make grand arguments about the law to juries,,,but today lawyers are nothing but technicians who play with statues and rules and pass this off as practicing law... a lawyer from today would have gotten killed in the courtroom in 1850...

lawyers used to all speak and write Latin and knew legal history going back thousands of years,,,now they pass off cases as legal education,,,and these lawyers graduate from law school without knowing THE LAW...

when a lawyer thinks the jurys job is to accept the law as given by the judge,,,youre just seeing another example of the dumbing down of America...

 

[ghostinthewood]

Anywho, good for the jury. Sucks it had to to be that guy though.

 

[jbombelli]

http://blog.franciscocosta.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Anywho, good for the jury. Sucks it had to to be that guy though.

I'll agree that it sucks it had to be THAT guy. He's hardly a pillar of the community. But that was what they had.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Not even close. A jury is NOT the people. Juries are to be impartial trier of fact. The jury is to set aside all bias and render a decision based upon fact and law. Facts as presented in evidence. Law as presented by the judge.

I know of someone who would disagree with you on that. You may have heard of him, his name was John Jay. As in one of the founding fathers, one of the major architects of the Constitution, President of the Continental Congress and the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In the first jury case in front of the Supreme Court here is part of his instructions to the jury.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best
judges of law. But still both objects are within your
power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a
right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both,
and to determine the law as well as the fact in
controversy".

 

[dross]

Mutiny: Open rebellion against constituted authority

I don't believe that's what happened here.

It is long established legal principle only relatively recently overruled by totalitarion minded judges that the jury is the trier of fact AND of the law.

I do not believe this is anarchy, I believe it is the last defense against tyranny.

I also believe that if, prior to the trial, the judge or prosecuting attorney tries to hold you to their preconceived notions of the righteousness of the law, you then have the moral right to lie as to your position about the law.

If you lie to the robber that you do not have gold, you commit no breach of morality. If you lie to the robber of your natural rights, you commit no breach of immorality.

 

[John Galt]

great site,,,out of rep...

this bastardization of the jury is why lawyers are no longer great thinkers or intelligent people ...and darn sure not the great orators as they once were,,,lawyers used to make grand arguments about the law to juries,,,but today lawyers are nothing but technicians who play with statues and rules and pass this off as practicing law... a lawyer from today would have gotten killed in the courtroom in 1850...

lawyers used to all speak and write Latin and knew legal history going back thousands of years,,,now they pass off cases as legal education,,,and these lawyers graduate from law school without knowing THE LAW...

when a lawyer thinks the jurys job is to accept the law as given by the judge,,,youre just seeing another example of the dumbing down of America...

As Harvard Law Dean, Kagan Did Not Require Study of U.S. Constitutional Law But Did Require Study of International and Foreign Law | CNSnews.com

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - Shakespeare

 

[Bill of Rights]

Semper, I see that you and I disagree again. I am certain that this conversation will be as intellectually enjoyable as our others.

Over a year ago, I wrote this:

Some time back, I saw a juror "test".. not, obviously, a test to allow one to be a juror, but rather a personal quiz for those who may find themselves called to serve someday.

The question before the court was that a citizen had broken a law. He had admitted to doing so, and the penalty was death. No proof of his violation of the law was required because of his admission, however the proof was plentiful, both in the form of eyewitnesses to his action and the police reports when he was caught in the act.

You stand as the lone juror who has not yet entered a vote. All 11 others have voted "guilty". How vote you?


If you just said (or thought) "Guilty"... you just condemned the man who hid Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis.
It is both essential and critical for the jury to judge both the law and the facts. One cannot be divorced from the other.



Blessings,
Bill

You are absolutely entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. The people are also entitled to a fair trial.

When prospective jurors proffer they will not uphold the law, whatever the law is and whatever the reason, not based upon evidence presented but on personal bias, this nation has devolved into lawlessness. As a matter of principle this is unacceptable to me.

It would be less offensive had the jury been seated, heard the case, and found him not guilty based upon evidence. As it is there was a population that effectively said we don't respect the rule of law. If this isn't anarchy I don't know what is?

It's not anarchy. It's the people serving the role they are supposed to serve, as you put it, a trier of fact.

Not even close. A jury is NOT the people. Juries are to be impartial trier of fact. The jury is to set aside all bias and render a decision based upon fact and law. Facts as presented in evidence. Law as presented by the judge.

It would be one thing to say after listening to the evidence that there was insufficient evidence to find guilt. It's another to say I don't care what the evidence is. The first is the jury doing its job. The second is an abbrigation of the responsibility.

The point raised in the full posting of the article, which omitted some pretty important information about the case, was that this guy was dealing drugs, not just consuming. You may or may not find distinction. You may or may not like the law. But when we as members of a jury premeditatedly decide on extrajudicial remedies we have devolved to lawlessness. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

The people were entitled to have the case heard. Prospective jurors failed to execute their constitutional responsibilities.

BTW it wasn't all jurors. It was just enough that a jury couldn't be seated from the pool.



No disagreement at all from me. I think there are too many laws and too many that aren't followed, or enforced. I'm all for getting rid of laws that society no longer wants or needs, and enforcing those that are left.

No, they're absolutely not supposed to be impartial in the sense of leaving all personal bias outside the courtroom; in fact, when I served on a murder jury, we were specifically instructed not to do so. We were told to BE the human beings we were, to use our knowledge, experience, and humanity to consider the facts of the case. I think the court failed when we were also instructed that the judge would inform us of the law and that we were to consider only the facts in light of that statement. As it happens, the crime in question was, in fact, murder, and the letter of the law was irrelevant. A young woman still died as a result of the actions of a drunken criminal who treated her as if she was no more than garbage.

Peers doesn't mean people like us that think like us. It means a jury selected from a cross section of society. Normal people not from the justice system.

Montana's Constitution simply states a right to a trial by jury. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution states:



In federal cases, and through incorporation there is a constitutional requirement to be impartial, not to be a "peer", whatever that means.

Are we to ignore the requirements of the Constitution because we don't like the law, a law whose authority eminates from that same Constitution?

The "jury of peers" thing is a result of the British habit of taking a suspect, throwing him in chains on a ship and taking him back to England for trial, far from anyone who actually was present at the scene of the crime of which he was accused. Any jury who heard his case would be prejudiced against him from the start because he was a colonist.

You made another point also comparing nullifying the law prohibiting sale of substances with the law prohibiting the victimizing of children and/or the practice of incest. While I think that incest can have some detestable side effects and it's not something of which I approve, if it's to be forbidden, it should be by moral authority, not legal authority... that is, by your church or by your own conscience, and if you practice it, you should be responsible for the care and upbringing of any child produced. The idea of comparing possession or even sale and distribution of a substance with a crime that directly causes harm to a person, more especially an innocent, seems intellectually disingenuous... surely you can see that the two... examples, respectively, of malum prohibitum and malum in se if I ever saw them... are hardly comparable.

Nullifying bad law by the action of a jury of good, thinking, moral men and women is one part of the whole purpose of having a jury in the first place.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cbop]

I would have thought that the potential jurors would have been much more responsible and make their point on their opinion of the law had they been seated as a jury and then chose to invalidate or nullify the law. To come to a conclusion without hearing the facts of the case is to make an uninformed decision. Uninformed decisions are not the way to run a country ruled by laws.

The defendant did not get justice, whether it be for or against him, because this jury pool decided what they felt was right before hearing the prosecutor's case. He is neither acquitted or found guilty... the result is null. My father always said that you do not change a bad law by breaking it... this jury had the chance to hear the evidence and then inform the judge that they do not feel the law is right in the case but instead, they chose to remove themselves from the process. This will be more of a landmark to those who want to avoid jury duty or those who wish to intimidate a jury than it is for those who want the state to know that they feel the law is wrong. All they did was waste the court's time, increase the defendant's legal fees and take the easy way out. They did not make a stand, they just sat down....

 

[level.eleven]

I would have thought that the potential jurors would have been much more responsible and make their point on their opinion of the law had they been seated as a jury and then chose to invalidate or nullify the law. To come to a conclusion without hearing the facts of the case is to make an uninformed decision. Uninformed decisions are not the way to run a country ruled by laws.

The defendant did not get justice, whether it be for or against him, because this jury pool decided what they felt was right before hearing the prosecutor's case. He is neither acquitted or found guilty... the result is null. My father always said that you do not change a bad law by breaking it... this jury had the chance to hear the evidence and then inform the judge that they do not feel the law is right in the case but instead, they chose to remove themselves from the process. This will be more of a landmark to those who want to avoid jury duty or those who wish to intimidate a jury than it is for those who want the state to know that they feel the law is wrong. All they did was waste the court's time, increase the defendant's legal fees and take the easy way out. They did not make a stand, they just sat down....

The jurors were disqualified because of the way they answered a question during the selection. The trial was suspended, because essentially, the state couldn't get enough "yes" votes from the pool. The jurors were stuck. Lie to the judge and follow your scenario, or tell the truth. Telling the truth prevented the details laid out in your post.

 

[ocsdor]

I like how some people view this as "anarchy", when it's the real reason we're guaranteed a jury of our peers. Some people will blindly follow the law, or blindly enforce the law, no matter how egregious, without any thought of their own. Those are the people who would march us into the ovens if the law required it, or walk into the ovens on their own two feet. And sadly, this nation is brimming over with them.

I agree 100%. What this jury did is a prime example of a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People.

Juries and firearms are the last lines of defense in the fight for freedom (real freedom; not that neo-con facist garbage on tv every night).

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, we can't regain freedom at the ballot box. Looks like juries are the last resort. A king Aline can't rain down terror on the serfs. His men half to do the footwork. I'm not a kingsman.

 

[tenring]

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

Care to list all of the numerous "crimes" that need some logic applied. Just might be an informative and educational post.