WidenersRepackboxMidSouth Shooters SupplyLoad Data
Inline FabricationTitan ReloadingReloading EverythingLee Precision
RotoMetals2
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 109

Thread: I got a notice today....

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    It seems like every time there's a discussion about jury duty on this forum, some people want to morph it into a discussion about jury nullification.

    Some people seem to hold a romanticized view of renegade jurors failing to follow their oath. There's this air that renegade jurors disregarding the law is some type of sword wielded by the people as a last defense to a tyrannical government. They fail to see that lawless activity by jurors as being just as dangerous to freedom as a lawless government.

    A rapist is captured and put on trial. All 12 jurors agree that the state's evidence is more than sufficient to convict the accused. However, ONE juror doesn't personally believe the government has the authority to criminalize the act of rape, so he votes not guilty. That juror doesn't think the laws prohibiting rape are "just". He doesn't think rape should be illegal. He personally disagrees with the law.

    That action will result in a mistrial. Then the government must decide to let the rapist go or conduct another trial.

    The concept that jury nullification is somehow "noble" or a defense against tyranny is wrong. It is term bantered about by people who believe they are above the law. It is a term used by people that believe they personally get to decide which laws they will obey. It is a term used by people that want to justify breaking their oath as jurors.

    Ask yourself - if it was your daughter that was raped, would you want her to endure a second trial just because some juror thought it was "cool" to disregard the law? Would you want the rapist to escape justice because some juror thought he was above the law or got to make his own laws?

    There is a reason we have laws and there is a reason jurors take an oath to follow the law.
    Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 08-18-2019 at 03:55 PM.

  2. #82
    Boolit Grand Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    12,820
    Quote Originally Posted by JBinMN View Post
    Thanks for your civil & polite reply.

    It is not that I am looking for a way to avoid jury duty, as I have said before. It is just that I try, as a "concerned citizen", to consider what is just or not when I make decisions. I expect that our elected legislators would do the same, as well as those in the judiciary, meaning in particular, prosecutors/Dist. Atty, et al..

    Unfortunately, it seems that at the top of the system, there are certain legislators from States, all the way to those in the US Congress, who think it is just fine to propose & try to implement laws that are un constitutional at their core, and foregoing their own oath to not make laws that are unconstitutional since they swear to "uphold" the US Constitution. Then there are the prosecutors who then try to use such laws to prosecute persons not just to "uphold the law", but to accomplish some other agendas , such as self promotion as a success & as a stepping stone to other more influential( powerful) positions in the future. With that, there are also those prosecutors who will allow other laws to be prosecuted as a result of those unconstitutional laws until they are overthrown by a higher court, while in the meantime the ones accused & if found guilty of such laws still have to suffer until their cases are overturned.

    Earlier I used the proposed Federal "Red Flag" laws ( Some states have already implemented them) as an example, and while it may not interest some, I am going to use that proposed legislation to provide an example of what I was trying to get folks to consider earleir to help demonstrate why I think the way I do.

    If someone has their property confiscated( firearms) before they have committed a crime, then they are not given "Due Process" under the law as per the US Constitution & the 5th & 14th Amendments. That being the case, if then, while those confiscated firearms are in the possession of the authorities it is discovered that one of those firearms was used in a crime before the person the firearms became the owner of that firearm, the person who had the firearms confiscated could be charged with a crime related to that firearm, & prosecuted for it, even if they had not bee the one involved in any crime & were unaware of the firearms criminal use.

    That type of thing would be wrong, in my thinking, and those who would use(prosecute) a law that was unconstitutional to further the prosecution of a law that "was" constitutional, would not be using fair & just practices to obtain a conviction. Basically using "illegal" means to prosecute.

    So, even if the person was found to be innocent of the reason for their firearms being confiscated in the first place, the "punishment" of the confiscation illegally, then would result in a further infringement by making the accused person unwittingly be a "witness against themselves" as per the 5th amendment because of the illegal & unconstitutional confiscation in the first place.

    This hypothetical can be switched around to any crime that becomes the "fruit of a poisonous tree", so it is not just about the Red Flag type laws, but any law that is put into place that is unconstitutional or the evidence is obtained thru such measures.

    Anyone who is willing to be a part of an unjust prosecution, including the jurors, is not much a leap from "lynching" even if the punishment is not hanging. It would be acting as a part of a "kangaroo court", and justice would not be served in a fair manner if it was to be allowed.

    OK, I will stop now & bow out & go do other things. I am just one who is quite zealous in my intention to try to make sure that folks are not ignorant of certain concepts that could have direct bearing on not only others, but on themselves if these situationsand potential laws are implemented.

    IOW... it could happen to YOU to be on one side(jury) or the other(accused) in regard to such laws & it might behoove folks to be aware of some of the things that might concern themselves or others who they care about if these laws are put into effect.


    I'm done now. Thanks for your patience.
    The Congress and the various state and local law making bodies do indeed pass some very self serving, stupid and dangerous laws. Thanksfully we have the concept of Judicial Review where by various courts can kill such laws, if they violate the U.S. or State Constitutions. Can these courts be political tools? Certainly they can and have been. But there are appelate courts to kill lower political ruling that violate the Rule of Law or the Constitution. The ultimate killer of bad laws in the United States Supreme Court and that is what makes the selection of the Justices so very important. Thus far our current POTUS has done a wonderful job with his judicial appointment at all levels of the Federal judiciary.

    I do not believe the United States Constitution has a devine origin, but is still is best governance document every produced by human beings. I am very strong support of this magnificant document. I continue to be amazed at just how well the writers thought out all the issues and their consequences. It is just a relevant today as if was when written. It is for this reason, I support our jury system as it is a fundamental part of American liberty and justice. When people think they can jack with the jury system, they also think they can jack with the Constitution.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  3. #83
    Moderator


    Winger Ed.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just outside Gun Barrel City, Texas
    Posts
    9,483
    This has reminded me of my Dad's long time friend.
    This guy was the most cynical, pessimistic person I ever knew.
    Whenever I saw him, I'd start to chuckle.
    I knew he was going to tell his latest tale of bad luck from some self inflicted event.
    He's the guy in the sea stories thread that the Navy Corpsmen gave Preparation H for burned fingers.

    He came over one time and told of getting a DWI.

    Next time I saw him, I asked how it worked out.
    He told me the Judge gave him a big fine, and some community service along with a threatening lecture.
    I asked, "The jury didn't give you any jail time"?

    He said, "Oh no. I only dealt with the Judge.
    I wasn't going to trust my fate to a bunch of people that couldn't get out of jury duty"
    In school: We learn lessons, and are given tests.
    In life: We are given tests, and learn lessons.


    OK People. Enough of this idle chit-chat.
    This ain't your Grandma's sewing circle.
    EVERYONE!
    Back to your oars. The Captain wants to waterski.

  4. #84
    Boolit Grand Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    12,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Winger Ed. View Post
    He said, "Oh no. I only dealt with the Judge.
    I wasn't going to trust my fate to a bunch of people that couldn't get out of jury duty"
    Now that is funny, truly funny. Cynical but still funny.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  5. #85
    Boolit Master and Dean of Balls




    fatnhappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,588
    I just pulled jury duty Friday, town court. I was back home 38 minutes after reporting and I stopped for coffee.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt
    No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.

  6. #86
    Boolit Grand Master In Remembrance
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Pacific NorthWet
    Posts
    3,877
    From what I've been told, Jury Nullification requires that the entire jury unanimously agree that a law is unjust, and that it should be gone, not just one juror. I'm no expert on the law o'course.

    I've been called once, was in bed rest from being injured badly at the time, had to get a Dr's note and was let off. I had a GF who was disabled and who was called, but was challenged by the defense counsel and didn't end up serving.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    Most states require a unanimous decision by the jury in a criminal case. (Oregon and Louisiana are exceptions) , so it only takes ONE juror to hang a jury.
    A hung jury results in a mistrial. A mistrial in a criminal case means the prosecutor gets to decide if he wants to do it all over again.

    If the state decides to conduct another trial the defendant's status continues (which may mean he sits in jail for months awaiting another trial) and a new trial date is set. Another 40,50...100..?.. people are summoned for jury duty and another jury panel is selected from those people. It's a "do over", complete with more cost, more inconvenience and at least 12 new jurors.
    Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 08-22-2019 at 02:12 PM.

  8. #88
    Boolit Buddy


    DxieLandMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    298
    My sister-in-law got a notice last week. Only problem? She died in May.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    755

    I got a notice today....


    ^^^That is what gives a single juror nullification power. The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again. And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by dangitgriff View Post

    ^^^That is what gives a single juror nullification power. The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again. And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not.
    OK, can you stop with the giant text? Seriously it makes it look like you're angry, or you perceive yourself as very important.

    Allow me to address these issues individually:

    "That is what gives a single juror nullification power......"

    Jurors take an oath to follow the law. Jurors decide facts. Judges decide matters of law.

    Jurors do not get to decide if they like a law, agree with a law or even if they think a law is Constitutional. Judicial review the domain of a judge. Nor do jurors get to substitute their own laws for the state's laws.
    The term "jury nullification" gets bantered around as if it is some type of power held by the people as a protection from the government. Jury Nullification is simply an euphemistic term for renegade jurors that decide they are above the law and wish to violate their oath.

    ".....The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again.....".
    An individual juror that decides he/she has the authority to conduct judicial review is not "Fully-informed", as you suggest.

    I'll use my prior example of a juror that doesn't believe rape should be criminal to explain this. Let's say a man is on trial for rape and all 12 jurors believe the state has met their burden of proof to convict the defendant but ONE juror doesn't believe the state has the authority to make rape illegal. That one juror substitutes his personal belief of what the law should be for what the law actually is.

    "Jury Nullification" sounds cool when people frame it as some protection against tyranny but it's not so cool when you realize that it is people making up their own laws or deciding if they agree with the law.

    As for the prosecutor's decision to re-try a case that ended in a hung jury - That decision is usually made based on how the jury deadlocked. If it was 11 votes to convict and one vote to acquit - the prosecutor is likely to take another shot at it knowing that he is unlikely to get another jury with another single crazy idiot juror. If the split was 11 votes to acquit and 1 vote to convict, the prosecutor may decide to punt that one.

    ".....And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not. ....."


    It's true that we are all paying to fund that prosecutor's office and the prosecutor is operating with our money and not his money. However, as a taxpayer funding that prosecutor' office, I would prefer he use his limited resources to prosecute criminals and not have to divert resources from other cases. If a prosecutor must re-try a case because some idiot juror thought it would be cool to disregard his or her oath; the prosecutor must then divert resources to conduct another costly trial.
    Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 08-22-2019 at 01:52 PM.

  11. #91
    Boolit Grand Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    12,820
    The folks who advocate juror oath violation, erroneously called jury nullification, are generally poorly informed people, filled with self importance, and violate their oath in order to gum up the judicial system. Like people form a circle, to pat each other on the back and feel they are some kind of superior patriots for their gross dishonesty.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  12. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    755

    I got a notice today....

    Sorry about the giant text, I use screenshots where I can’t copy/paste the text. It’s unintentional.
    Anyway, I could not disagree more with those who regard jury nullification as some sort of an un-American assault on the judicial system. It appears as though government propaganda has succeeded in hoodwinking the average uninformed American.
    Please read this 2012 article by the late, great Will Grigg detailing a court case where jury nullification was confirmed as a legitimate function of jurors:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/...s-now-the-law/
    Here is a webpage full of pertinent links to articles and essays supporting the position of jury nullification:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Jury+nullification+
    Case law going back to the Magna Carta fully supports jury nullification. The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naive at best and fatal to liberty at worst.
    R/Griff
    Last edited by dangitgriff; 08-22-2019 at 03:06 PM.

  13. #93
    Moderator


    Winger Ed.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just outside Gun Barrel City, Texas
    Posts
    9,483
    There was a story here years ago on the local news of a guy on trial for robbery.

    It was one of those desperate situations, he had been laid off, had to feed his kids,
    he didn't really have a gun- he put his finger in his pocket and told a store clerk it was a gun.
    He didn't get any money, and was held for Police without incident.

    At the end of the proceedings:
    His attorney told him the jury was going to come back and find him- not guilty.
    He told the guy, when they did, to stand up and thank the jury and the judge.

    Everybody knew he did it,,,, but, as predicted, he was found- not guilty.

    He then stood up and told the court, "Thank you all for that ruling, and I promise,,,,, I'll never do it again".
    Last edited by Winger Ed.; 08-22-2019 at 03:38 PM.
    In school: We learn lessons, and are given tests.
    In life: We are given tests, and learn lessons.


    OK People. Enough of this idle chit-chat.
    This ain't your Grandma's sewing circle.
    EVERYONE!
    Back to your oars. The Captain wants to waterski.

  14. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    I'm hardly an uninformed American when it comes to our laws, nor have I been "Hoodwinked" by "government propaganda".

    That jurors can choose to disregard their oath, and do so without consequences; doesn't make the practice proper.
    Couple that with the protection against double jeopardy and there is some real damage that can be done by renegade jurors that think they get to make their own laws.

    Finally to address: "The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naïve at best and fatal to liberty at worst. "
    For starters, one cannot "abolish" what does not exist.

    Jury Nullification is hardly a "safeguard" against government tyranny although it is often touted as such.
    Jury Nullification is often portrayed as some sort of last defense against a tyrannical government BUT it only appears as such when the outcome is favorable.

    Once again, ask yourself if you would be such a staunch supporter of jurors breaking their oath if they refused to convict your daughter's rapist simply because the jurors didn't believe the government had the authority to declare rape illegal?

    Jurors decide facts not law.

    Jury Nullification sounds like a good practice when it is painted as protection against tyranny but it doesn't look as so good when it is painted as what it really is - disobedience to: a duty, an oath and the law.

  15. #95
    Boolit Master
    JBinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Goodhue County, SE Minnesota
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by dangitgriff View Post
    Sorry about the giant text, I use screenshots where I can’t copy/paste the text. It’s unintentional.
    Anyway, I could not disagree more with those who regard jury nullification as some sort of an un-American assault on the judicial system. It appears as though government propaganda has succeeded in hoodwinking the average uninformed American.
    Please read this 2012 article by the late, great Will Grigg detailing a court case where jury nullification was confirmed as a legitimate function of jurors:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/...s-now-the-law/
    Here is a webpage full of pertinent links to articles and essays supporting the position of jury nullification:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Jury+nullification+
    Case law going back to the Magna Carta fully supports jury nullification. The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naive at best and fatal to liberty at worst.
    R/Griff
    Thanks for the links.

    I found another to be quite interesting as well on the page with the list:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/03/...ks-on-tyranny/

    Here is an interesting quote from the article:

    At the trial, the accused is presumed innocent and federal prosecutors have the burden of providing sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. The accused himself has the right to present evidence showing that he is not guilty of the offense.

    After both sides have presented their evidence, the federal judge instructs the jury that its duty is simply to weigh the evidence and decide whether the accused is guilty. The judge’s duty, he explains, is to provide the jury with the applicable law in the case.

    What federal judges (and, for that matter, state judges) never explain to the jury, however, is the full extent of its powers. Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. If the jury decides that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or tyrannical, the jurors can vote to acquit the accused and there is nothing the federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it.

    Once the verdict of acquittal is announced, the judge must discharge the defendant, enabling him to immediately walk out of the courtroom a free man. The jury itself is discharged as well, and neither the prosecutors nor the judge can retaliate against the jurors. The jury verdict is final.
    There is some additional info regarding the 2nd Amend. that is worth the read as well, IMO.
    2nd Amend./U.S. Const. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    ~~ WWG1WGA ~~

    Restore the Republic!!!

    For the Fudds > "Those who appease a tiger, do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last." -Winston Churchill.

    President Reagan tells it like it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6MwPgPK7WQ

    Phil Robertson explains the Wall: https://youtu.be/f9d1Wof7S4o

  16. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Winger Ed. View Post
    There was a story here years ago on the local news of a guy on trial for robbery.

    It was one of those desperate situations, he had been laid off, had to feed his kids,
    he didn't really have a gun- he put his finger in his pocket and told a store clerk it was a gun.
    He didn't get any money, and was held for Police without incident.

    At the end of the proceedings:
    His attorney told him the jury was going to come back and find him- not guilty.
    He told the guy, when they did, to stand up and thank the jury and the judge.

    Everybody knew he did it,,,, but, as predicted, he was found- not guilty.

    He then stood up and told the court, "Thank you all for that ruling, and I promise,,,,, I'll never do it again".
    That is not an example of jury nullification. A jury that finds the state failed to prove all of the elements of a crime must vote to acquit. In the above example the jurors could have found that the defendant didn't separate the victim from their property with force or the threat of force - therefore the elements of robbery were not met.
    In the above example the jurors could simply have concluded that the defendant's actions didn't rise to the level of a robbery. That's not an example of jurors believing the law against robbery is unjust; that's an example of jurors believing the government failed to prove all of the necessary elements of robbery.

  17. #97
    Moderator


    Winger Ed.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just outside Gun Barrel City, Texas
    Posts
    9,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrol & Powder View Post
    In the above example the jurors could simply have concluded that the defendant's actions didn't rise to the level of a robbery. That's not an example of jurors believing the law against robbery is unjust; that's an example of jurors believing the government failed to prove all of the necessary elements of robbery.
    Nobody ever called me a real deep thinker.
    With nerve deafness in one ear, some hearing loss in the other, my world is a rather quiet, and simple place.
    All things considered, I rather like it that way.

    I always figured our system was engineered to have real, normal, day to day people involved in it at various levels.
    Both as over sight, and to keep it close & personal to the very people it serves, rather than some abstract thing that is totally left
    to 'professionals' or beauracrats 1,000 miles away with no skin in the game and potentionaly - a poor grasp on reality.
    Last edited by Winger Ed.; 08-22-2019 at 04:29 PM.
    In school: We learn lessons, and are given tests.
    In life: We are given tests, and learn lessons.


    OK People. Enough of this idle chit-chat.
    This ain't your Grandma's sewing circle.
    EVERYONE!
    Back to your oars. The Captain wants to waterski.

  18. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    JB, your quoted text is only partially accurate:

    "What federal judges (and, for that matter, state judges) never explain to the jury, however, is the full extent of its powers. Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. If the jury decides that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or tyrannical, the jurors can vote to acquit the accused and there is nothing the federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it."



    While it is entirely true that there is "....... nothing federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it [jurors disregarding their oath]. It is NOT true that "....Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. "
    The jury does not have "the power to judge the law" but they do have the power to disregard their oath and duty with impunity.

    So if a jury runs off the rails and disregards their: oath, duty and the law - there's not much the government can do about it. HOWEVER, that doesn't make it right or lawful.

    So, ONE MORE TIME, ask yourself if a jury found the law against rape to be "unjust, immoral or tyrannical" and the victim was your daughter - Would you feel it was OK for the jury to make their own laws? Would you think it was OK for that jury to disregard their oath?

  19. #99
    Boolit Master
    1911sw45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Princeton, KY
    Posts
    516
    To answer P&P. Yes I would be ok with that. Not that I liked it. That’s the reason for a jury trial. And unfortunately in our justice system it’s a crap shoot any more going to a jury trial. Flame on and say what you will.

  20. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sw45 View Post
    To answer P&P. Yes I would be ok with that. Not that I liked it. That’s the reason for a jury trial. And unfortunately in our justice system it’s a crap shoot any more going to a jury trial. Flame on and say what you will.
    I'll take the high road and leave the flaming to others, thank you.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check