Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
You obviously have never been on a jury or in a jury pool.
I was in a pool of 24 for a DUI case last June.
THREE police officers in that pool.
This article was written by a hysterical nut, in a case about a hysterical nut.
Throwing up dust about the jury pool shows what a weak case Mr. Stanley actually has.
His attorney is poisoning the jury against his client. THAT'S where the outrage ought to be focused.
uh? That didn't make any sense. Denver has a no-gun law. Period. Besides, is it really wrong to have a gun "too" close to a government building, and what is "too" close?
Why not? The employees aren't suing you; the duly elected and appointed city government is suing you.
And, if an attorney has a problem with them, he can strike them during jury selection.
Would you kindly elaborate upon that assertion?
From my position as a guardhouse lawyer on the couch this is the purest form of socialist sedition BS by a member of the judical process I think I have ever observed ........
If this kangaroo court is allowed to stand then it is proof that this country and it's citizens safety from such radical loose cannon stasi forms of government is done for............
What a friggin crock of crap ..................Stay Safe !
I would like to see an independent verification (from news media, other observers, etc.) that this actually took place. This is simply too grotesque to be believed.
Let me be clear I am not advocating this remedyy merely observing that it will come after enough tyranny has left a sufficient portion of the population thinking it has nothing to lose by demanding justice by other means.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
I pretty much don't care if the author was writing this dressed in a clown suit in a clock tower sitting on a block of ice if the judges instructions regarding the mention of the constitution are true ! That IMHO is the story here....not what good or bad tactics the defendent has used .
Stay Safe !
Stay Safe Bro.....
It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department.
Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time.
Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?"
In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, "That's not the question you asked."
The above paragraph does not depict neocheating so much as it documents judge Patterson's intentional/bald-face lying. Apparently judge Patterson thinks he can get away with that and thinks he will be permitted to so boldly lie. Let's see how many other government officials judge Patterson will drag into self-exposure traps as they use weasel-worded non sequiturs to tow the line.
How ironic is it that with one lie judge Patterson has proven and demonstrated his on-the-job incompetence and contempt for justice.
When Mr. Stanley was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused.
More contempt of justice by the presiding judge Patterson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.