Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does trial by Jury still work?
Mainestategop ^ | 7/11/11 | Mainestategop

Posted on 07/12/2011 10:06:07 AM PDT by mainestategop

I've meant to write about this for sometime but the recent verdict with Casey Anthony was what brought me into writing it. This incident is disgusting and shows that the jury trial, which was considered an important right and cornerstone in our nation's founding HAS been undermined. It shows how far we have drifted from our Christian values and the philosophical values of our godly founders who gave us this great nation.

My view of why this happened can be summed up by Rush Limbaugh who pointed to the so called pro-choice movement that advocates legal murder for babies...

"You know, what I don't understand about it is they're [the media] all card-carrying liberals. When does the death of a child bother them? I've never seen them get so upset over the death of a child... if they want to feel better, they should imagine that Casey Anthony had an abortion instead:

"You people in the media, if you really, really think she is guilty and you want to feel better about this just tell yourselves that she waited a couple of years to get an abortion and then you'll feel better."

"Abortion is brutal, [it's] never characterized that way and the reason it is brutal is because there is an element of truth of it. I just wanted to put it out there. Pure and simple, nothing more."

Well as you can imagine the liberals and their pro infanticide allies in planned parenthood weren't happy about that remark. But its truthful. In fact I take it several steps ahead. The Jury simply acquitted Casey Anthony because to them its not murder to take the life of a child that has either not yet been born or has been socialized and conformed to the liberal Marxist paradigm that dominates western culture and is eating it through. To that Jury, Caylee Anthony was just a slab of meat. An Animal at best. Not socialised, not conformed to the ways and whims of the liberal way and therefore did not have a right to live.

In fact as I heard one man put it, had Caylee Anthony still been a fetus and even if her mother Casey had confessed and enjoyed murdering her, the media and liberals all around the world would hail her as a hero the same way they view The murderers of Terri Schiavo. None the less Caylee was not yet indoctrinated and socialized into European liberal soviet values, nor was she old enough. She was therefore expendable.

With that we must look into why our founders and why men of great wisdom in days of yore looked to Trial by Jury as a necessity. In the olden days it was perceived by our founders and those who influenced them that trial by jury was a necessary check against corrupt verdicts by judges who could easily be bribed.

In Merry Old England For instance in a lot of the trials that took place in the Bailey, defendants were for the most part considered guilty until proven innocent, given no public defense and who fate lay within the hands of a judge who at times was open to bribery, prejudice and corruption. Though during the English civil war and other times in history There were juries but they were just as corrupt, staffed by handpicked individuals who were simply yes men nothing more.

Couple of notes, if you want to see a traditional version of British justice awry for yourself or read about it I highly recommend reading two novels by Bernard Cornwell. A Crowning Mercy and The Gallows Thief. Recommended to me by a friend which I read and enjoyed.

The founders wanted for our nation to embrace the notion that the defendant in civil and criminal issues was innocent until proven guilty. To make sure that there were no issues, the defendant was given chances for an appeal, a public defender well versed in the law and of course a jury made of up the defendant's peers who after hearing evidence and testimony and then debating and discussing it amongst themselves would come to their own conclusions based on unbiased study reach a verdict into his guilt or innocence.

For awhile this worked. Remember that during this time we were still a Christian nation. We were still a nation that was founded AND STILL GROUNDED on Judeo Christian principles, case in point, that it was a mortal sin to lie under oath, that liars would be bared from the kingdom of heaven and jurors debated the defendant's fate under the fear of a just God who would rend his OWN verdicts on those jurors depending on how they came to this conclusion.

To that end many states forbade Atheists to testify under oath before God since they did not believe in God and therefore absolute morals, Witnesses and others swore an oath on a bible and our universities and colleges were men studied law were Christian and devout. So much so that at times they make Liberty University and Bob Jones look like Child's play. It was here that the justice system in America got its start. A system which at first was superior to any other with respects towards accused and accuser, victim and suspect. Jurors themselves who came from pious backgrounds also affected. They knew that their souls were to be judged on their decisions.

However as we have gradually moved away from that over the two hundred thirty plus something years since our founding and have cast aside our Judeo Christian values, we no longer have morality. For the most part we either don't believe in the existence of God or that if he did he couldn't care less. The last century in particular saw some heinous incidents of injustice which show how unjust we have become but that justice and decency are only possible in a society that is pious and religious both inward and outwardly. Inwardly in Particular.

Both their hands are equally skilled at doing evil! Officials and judges alike demand bribes. The people with influence get what they want, and together they scheme to twist justice. Micah 7:3

Jurors today just like judges and lawyers generally don't care about what almighty God says about fairness and just rewards or what will become of them for their doings, and not surprisingly has fueled the deterioration of our nation. Below are a few good examples that Jury trials are no longer effective. Bear in mind though for I leave you the reader to formulate your own conclusions.

Medgar evans murder trial (Ghosts of Mississippi)

The Trial of Byron De La Beckwith For the Murder of Medgar Evans which was immortalized in the Movie Ghost's of Mississippi is a good place to start. At that time in our nation's history particularly in the south, lynchings became common place. In such instances, blacks who were accused of a crime could expect no sympathy and face a white judge and jury and were usually considered guilty. Then again most didn't make it that far and were simply put to death by angry Mobs.

Blacks who found themselves victims such as the family of Civil Rights leader Medgar Evans also from these same white judge and juries were denied justice. Their persecutors found not guilty through a series of mistrials. It was in such and such an incident that the killer of Medgar Evans was released and was lionized by the Democratic liberals of Mississippi as a hero to white nationalism. It wasn't until the 80s that Byron De La Beckwith was finally found guilty by a more mixed jury.

Investigations into civil rights murders and Klan related crimes by the Democratic party and the Klan were usually undermined by the biased government. Proving yet again it doesn't deserve our trust. Another incident with the Greensboro massacre also showed this when jurors acquitted the Klan of bombing a labor march.

Rodney King verdict

The Rodney King Verdict is a shining example of just how bad our juror system has become. Most of us are old enough to remember the beating that took place. King was pulled over for committing an offense and the LAPD proceeded to relentlessly and excessively beat him. By coincidence this was all caught on camera. It turns out this is common place in Los Angeles even today and more so under Former Police Chief Darly F Gates, who aside from being a leftist who advocated tough restrictions on guns, braged about killing black suspects during the 80s.

Despite overwhelming video evidence, a jury based in Simi Valley in Ventura County found the LAPD officers involved in his beating not guilty. Ensuing riots and racial incidents exploded soon afterwards throughout LA county. Even Conservatives like The Bush Family and others were shocked by this verdict.

I did some research of my own before writing over the past year and I discovered that race actually didn't have much to do with the Jury's verdict. It turns out Ventura County in particular Simi Valley is a popular residence for Police officers from Surrounding counties. Law enforcement personnel commute as far north as Santa Barbara, East to Bakersfield and many are in the LAPD. No doubt a lot of the jurors were relatives or sympathetic to law enforcement. In addition at that time crime was very high in LA and other cities and Many whites fled to Ventura in particular Simi Valley. Not to difficult to connect that these jurors had sympathy only for the officers.

So, it should come to no surprise that the Jury was tainted and little was done. In the end the Federal government intervened and put a leash on the LAPD which did nothing to lower crime or brutality despite passing the Christopher Commission reforms and other reforms that failed. As I mentioned in my last article government is the source of the problem and therefore a poor solution.

Also in the beating of truck driver Reginald Denny by Black rioters and gang bangers, jurors at HIS trial paid back the favor by acquitting Denny's attackers.

OJ Simpson Trail

This brings me to another notorious Los Angeles trial. The OJ Simpson Murder case in 1995 of OJ's wife Nicole Brown Simpson. Despite overwhelming evidence that showed OJ to be guilty including DNA evidence jurors acquitted him. This was brought on mostly by the liberal media which 24/7 endlessly painted the trial in racial terms. Supposedly Mark Fuhrman was a racist who planted evidence on OJ, this was a racist conspiracy ETC.

Well, we later learned that wasn't the case although when Fuhrman claimed he never used the N-word in over a decade THAT was a lie which in the end cost him his job and a prison sentence for perjury. Still the damage was done thanks to remarks by Fuhrman. In My Opinion if Fuhrman concealed whatever racial biases supposed by him, the jury probably would have convicted him. Even though the majority of Americans believed him guilty, jurors were no doubt intimidated by fears of being labeled a racist by the media if convicted.

None the less OJ Simpson's days are numbered. His conviction of robbery in Las Vegas will put him away perhaps for the rest of his days. While some call this justice finally served, the facts behind the murder will remain a mystery for ages.

Nicholas "Fat Nick" Minucci

I plan to do a full article on this subject but this is yet another shining example of how juries in America are tainted with racial and ideological bigotry. Nichoals Minucci AKA Fat Nick was arrested and sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending himself from an armed robber. It turns out the robber was a black criminal who openly admitted to being in Nick's home neighborhood of Howard Beach for the purpose of stealing a car.

He was never charged with intent to carjacking or with trying to rob Minucci. Instead he was exonerated and to make matters worse, his victim Minucci was charged with assault and even claimed that it was racially inspired! To make matters worse, the liberal press went on an unprecedented rampage of lies and distortions. The New York Nazi Times, The east coast's own "ministry of truth" never once mentioned fact in the case. Never once did they let him have a say. Instead they tarred and feathered Fat Nick as a racist and a white supremacist bigot.

Other fake news such as The Call, which was run by the black supremacist Nation of Islam branded Nick a racist and never once mentioned self defense. Oh by the way there was one columnist for the New York times who did mention it but said that it was wrong.

The trial of Fat Nick itself was outrageous. Nick was not given a jury of peers but a multi ethnic jury, and the prosecution also broke the law by using sealed juvenile records against him. It turned out that when he was 15 he had been involved in a stupid prank against a sikh temple involving a paint gun incident. Well sad to say this took place just after 9/11 which did not look good for Nicholas. It didn't take long for the jury to come back with a guilty verdict. Instead of serving 20 years Nick was sentenced to 7. Its probably the only good outcome if any at all.

But you don't have to be white to have this happen to you. In Suffolk county on Long Island New York a black man named John White who's home was besieged by five drunken and drug addled white nationalists armed with sicks and knives making racial slurs and screaming threats dared violated the liberal view that Americans have no right to defend themselves and must therefore rely on law enforcement which is either over stretched or lazy. John White shot the men outside who were trespassing.

According to the castle doctrine John White was in the right to open fire on them when they were openly making threats in plain view. At least that would've been the case in places such as Texas. But New York liberals are against both the right of defense and property ownership. (unless that person or thing is property of the state in which only the state can commit abuses.) To make matters worse, Suffolk county has a history of being a hotbed of racism. John White was found guilty by a jury of white liberals and sentenced to 24 years in prison. The sentence was later reduced and later White was freed.

Still Liberals and local media criticized the fanfare given by the trial. Some of this content included attacks against property rights and gun rights as well as racially charged vitriol. Still, even left wing groups like the International Communist league which surprisingly does support gun rights were shocked that a man like white could go to jail for practicing a basic constitutional and human right. In the end the tables were turned and the opponents of self defense got scorched in return.

Emaline HighTower

In the state of Massachusetts in 2006, Emaline HighTower, a recent high school graduate who had plans to attend university and seek a career either as an architect or a lawyer. Her plans for her future were horribly and tragically dashed to bits by the State of Massachusetts which regarded her as mentally incompetent. Why? Because Emaline HighTower was diagnosed by a doctor with having Asperger's syndrome and Bipolar disorder. The diagnosis of Asperger's came about because she was teased and ostracised at school and even disliked by teachers. The Bipolar label came from school transcripts that said that she argued frequently with teachers. But they fail to mention that the arguments came as a result of the teachers refusing to do their jobs, help her or prevent persecution against her that distracted her from learning.

One other thing that psychiatrists ignored was that she was a bright young woman with a b average (could have been better had the school done its job and enforced rules against harassment and so on.) and that she had been employed after school and during the summer. She was saving money to go to University or College. She was also a councilor at a summer camp for foster children. But they omitted that and claimed that she was mentally retarded and had no social skills, was disorganized and disheveled.

In addition the doctors claimed she had poor judgement because of two reasons, 1. She was deciding whether or not to become and architect or lawyer. They claimed that by not deciding one at the bat she was incompetent. I have heard the same thing happen to a friend of mine who had the same allegation made because he told a doctor in one appointment a year previous he wanted to become a sous chef while in another one months later he wanted to become and arc-welder. Well, maybe its not the patient who is out of line and in need of better judgment.

Emaline's parents also were not very supportive either. Although they were loving and caring at first, they were not pleased with how things were going for her in High School. In fact they blamed her for why they and they school failed to bring her up properly. Despite making many accomplishments they had no problem with throwing that away. They, along with Emaline's guidance counselor decided to force her into the mental health system.

Emaline's parents also made things worse by making her emotionally stirred up during a couple of evaluation sessions at the outpatient clinic they forced her to go to. They forced her by legally taking possession of her bank account and savings and threatening to get rid of it if she didn't obey. On the day of one appointment her father assaulted her and called her a stupid good for nothing. She arrived at the doctors emotionally wound up and they said they wanted the doctors to see what she was like. The doctors ignored allegations of blackmail and abuse by the parents and instead suggested that she has emotional problems and needed to see a therapist for distress tolerance training. The doctors ignored what had happened.

emaline was forced to take powerful Psychotropic meds that caused her to feel weak and sluggish other times making her feel agitated. Meds such as seroquel, Risperdal and Prozac which she would be proscribed made her feel worse. She was unable to hold onto her job and was fired, she had a car accident and instead of pointing to the meds as the source of the problems, doctors blamed her saying her bipolar would not let her work anymore. REALLY?

Despite threats parents with advice from the doctors decided to get rid of her money and property. Doctors declared that despite a glowing resume and a relationship with a High School sweetheart and the two being awarded during the prom as most likely to marry, she would never be able to work and marry. Doctors even claimed she should have her tubes tied so she wouldn't pass her supposed mental illness of Aspergers and bipolar on to her offspring. Just like Hitler's Eugenics.

There was another reason why as well. At the time, Governor Mitt Romney had just signed in the socialist Massachusetts health care bill into law requiring residents to purchase health insurance or pay a 1000$ fine. She was ordered to have her entire assets taken away so she could qualify for free health care benefits.

Before they could do anything however, Emaline rented a car with money she could procure and attempted to flee to New Hampshire. Her parents called the police and claimed she was going to New Hampshire to commit suicide. It lead to a high speed pursuit on I-95 by the Massachusetts state police and the Rockingham county sheriff. She was blocked off at the toll both near Seabrook and fled on foot but was caught. She was then taken to a local hospital. Despite protests doctors concluded it would be best for her to be confined to the state of Massachusetts. She was taken from the Hospital in Exeter by ambulance to Solomon Mental health center and discharged into the custody of her parents.

An involuntary commitment hearing was soon underway. Emaline was defended by a legal aid since her money was gone and it was a jury hearing. Despite pleas by Emaline and an empassioned plea by her legal aid jurors took little time in declaring Emaline mentally incompitent and approving her for involuntary commitment and emergency guardianship under her parents. The jurors were made up primarily of white liberals who later commented that it is for her own good that she be forced to participate in programs and forgo a career or university to do so. One juror commented that She looked peculiar and unusual and that she felt someone like her would benefit being cared for by the state rather than go on her own.

The judge was in full agreement. Emaline remembered that human to cockroach look given to her by the judge who stated that she was in flat out denial of her disability and that she was an irresponsible woman. She needed to take responsibility for her mental illness, remain in Massachusetts and participate in programs that are designed to help her. When she tried to speak up the judge threatned to hold her in contempt of court and lock her away for a long time in an institution. The judge stated she was not right in the head based on the opinions of experts and that the state in its infallible judgement was in agreement.

Under the conditions of her commitment and guardianship, she was forbiddent to leave the state, she was forced to take meds that made her weak and sick, she was forbiddent to work at certain jobs or attend university. This did not matter because with a psychiatric record and no money to attend university she couldn't get thsoe jobs and to make matters worse, Romneycare drove most of the jobs out of the state anyway. From that point on she was unemployed and never worked again. She was also forced to reside in a group home in Topsfield Massachusetts for mentally challenged adults. She was the only one there who could dress herself and feed herself. In 2009 she took her own life when attendants at the group home werent looking by running away and sliting her wrists in the woods.

Emaline could have been a taxpayer, a contributor, that would also lead to MORE jobs even but a liberal jury and judge decided that the state knew better and that control is preferable to prosperity. Emaline once had a career, a boyfriend, self respect, self esteem, dignity, freedom. But liberals hate those things and they had to go.

Final thoughts and conclusion

Trial by jury is one of the most important facets of a constitutional and free society. It is a neccesary check against tyranny and against injustices but only when done right. Jurors must be educated, skilled, and must have excellent judgement. The jurors must put aside their biases personal and political and focus only on the issue of guilt or innocenece in a criminal or civil trial. Jurors must also have in possesion morality and virtue. Add to this, they must be good citizens. Liberals unfortunately are incapable of morality and patriotism and cannot be good citizens.

In order for our justice system to become a model standard once more, we must become a moral and godly nation once more. We must cast aside liberalism and godlessness and embrace a higher standard of inspired absolutes. Furthermore we need to stop letting the state dictate to us what is best.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: caseyanthony; civilrights; constitution; court; courts; emalinehightower; fatnick; judge; jury; liberalbias; liberalfascism; liberaljury; liberalnazis; manucci; medgarevans; ojsimpson; rodneyking; socialism; trial; verdict

1 posted on 07/12/2011 10:06:17 AM PDT by mainestategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

With a liberal infested Jury? Hell NO.


2 posted on 07/12/2011 10:08:52 AM PDT by Cheetahcat ( November 4 2008 ,A date that will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

BTW Liberal means, Filthy Communist.


3 posted on 07/12/2011 10:10:16 AM PDT by Cheetahcat ( November 4 2008 ,A date that will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Hasn’t worked since OJ got away with cold blooded murder, hands covered with blood, and bloody glove behind his house. Other than just letting one or a panel of three judges determine guilt/innocence, I’m not sure what the solution is.


4 posted on 07/12/2011 10:11:19 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Trial by jury won’t work as long as the case lawyers pick the jury.


5 posted on 07/12/2011 10:12:14 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

And we must stop cherry-picking jurors. Former military, police, private investigators, and such should not be excluded from the jury pool unless there is cause to do so.

The military system is superior in that respect because it limits the amount of challenges a prosecutor or defense lawyer can issue in selecting a jury.


6 posted on 07/12/2011 10:12:35 AM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

I don’t think the jury system is the problem. The problem is we have become a dumbed down society, no common sense, and most have the attention span of a flea.

Obama is our President.......thats all the proof you need.


7 posted on 07/12/2011 10:12:49 AM PDT by panthermom (Pray for my son in Aghanistan and all the troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

“Liberals unfortunately are incapable of morality and patriotism and cannot be good citizens.”

wow, that’s a pretty strong statement!


8 posted on 07/12/2011 10:12:55 AM PDT by MNDude (so that's what they meant by Carter's second term)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop
Blog pimping so early?
9 posted on 07/12/2011 10:13:55 AM PDT by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Casey Anthony was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove their case and the jury properly did not send Anthony to jail and maybe a death sentence just because a mob of screaming women outside the courthouse wanted that.

In this case the jury system worked just fine.

The message to prosecutors here is not to bring charges against people until they have a solid case.


10 posted on 07/12/2011 10:14:23 AM PDT by MeganC (Are you better off than you were four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

I might accept the argument that jurors should be selected on the basis of their commitment to civic duty (registering to vote) vs. operation of a dangerous vehicle.

However, our entire trial/jury system is designed to be better to free a guilty person than to punish an innocent one. Otherwise, I’m wary of someone attempting to change the system simply because they didn’t like a verdict.

It was the prosecution’s case to lose and they did.


11 posted on 07/12/2011 10:15:12 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

you do realize the “picking” is severly limited.

you have a very finite number of strikes to remove for whatever reason... (5?)

The judge can question the reason regardless

you have a set number for cause...(knows the people, family, relative, would never convict, would always convict...)

The judge can question the reason

And you have the defense and prosecution working to get different jurrors on or off.

This also includes jurrors who come up with any form of excuse to get out of the jury.

The LAST people you want making a decision for YOUR LIFE is a sanctimonious judge or a prosecutor (see nifong)


12 posted on 07/12/2011 10:16:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

PS Florida jury trials have the same thing. (as in this recent casey anthony trial)


13 posted on 07/12/2011 10:17:58 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

The American jury system works just fine 5 days a week in every city and county of our great country. The American people are well educated and fair minded. Overall they do a wonderful job of judging their peers.

I was on a jury about 2 years ago. A child molestation case in Gwinnett County, GA. The trial took 3 days. The prosecution and the defense put on their case and then the jury deliberated and a came to a verdict. I believe we got to the truth and made the right decision.

Occasionally a guilty person goes free and an innocent person goes to jail but most of the time justice is done. Its not a perfect system but then nothing ever is.


14 posted on 07/12/2011 10:19:37 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

I think most of the time Trial by Jury works just fine. Most people will convict or acquit someone regardless of their skin color or politics according to their conscience.

In the case of Casey Anthony, for example, I was personally outraged at the acquittal, but I can’t fault the jury’s decision based on the case the prosecution built.

At the end of the day, prosecutors are government employees who have no real “skin in the game” whether they win or lose. Defense attorneys rise and fall by their performance though.

Maybe the real problem is that the prosecution bears the largest burden of proof, and there’s simply no real incentive for them to go at it hard, get it right the first time, etc.

Everything in the state’s road to conviction sets the prosecution of to fail - CSI labs are usually remote with dispassionate lab techs who only do the testing their ordered to do, and take no personal interest in the larger case. There’s often no real penalty for lying on the stand as a witness, unless you’re outright proven to be deliberately perjuring yourself. Long trials tend to desensitize juries to the horrific details of the cases their evaluating.

Maybe the “fix” is to incentivize the prosecution for clear wins and to penalize them for procedural losses, or acquittals that arise as a direct result of lack of attention to detail or engagement.

The bottom line is that most juries take the “reasonable doubt” caveat very seriously, and the prosecution has to be exceedingly convincing to get past that.


15 posted on 07/12/2011 10:20:26 AM PDT by Heavyrunner (Socialize this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The LAST people you want making a decision for YOUR LIFE is a sanctimonious judge or a prosecutor (see nifong)


True I was thinking of a random selection from a qualified pool of those with no interest in the case.


16 posted on 07/12/2011 10:22:03 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

One thing is certain. The process of jury selection and the rules for serving need to be changed.

None of these jurors should be able to make money off of serving for a period of 5 years after a verdict.

There should be no jury consultants and the jury should be selected from the county where the trial is held.

They can always move the whole trial before starting it.

Another thing. The defense does not have to prove the person innocent. That said, if they are going to lay out a defense by laying the blame at the specific feet of another person who has not been charged, they need to offer some evidence to prove it. If they can’t, it should be stricken as false.


17 posted on 07/12/2011 10:22:41 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

not to mention the junk science experts.


18 posted on 07/12/2011 10:23:00 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


THEY’RE NOT DONATING MONTHLY!


** help .. click **

19 posted on 07/12/2011 10:23:17 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mainestategop
Does trial by Jury still work?

...it could.

..if the trial is not too long.

Every week that the trial drags on, is a step closer to the person on trial getting off scott-free.

20 posted on 07/12/2011 10:23:40 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Every time I start to rail against the jury system and the morons who get put on juries, I stop and think about what trial by judge means—and get a cold chill up my spine.

To paraphrase the old quote: the jury system is the worst system in the World for determining guilt, except for all the others.


21 posted on 07/12/2011 10:28:22 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Who is Medgar Evens? Perhaps he meant Medgar Evers?


22 posted on 07/12/2011 10:30:56 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop
Jurors must be educated, skilled, and must have excellent judgment. The jurors must put aside their biases personal and political and focus only on the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal or civil trial. Jurors must also have in possession morality and virtue. Add to this, they must be good citizens. Liberals unfortunately are incapable of morality and patriotism and cannot be good citizens.

It is important to note that it only takes 8 to 16% of jurors to have these qualities for a successful jury system, and knowing that Liberals are unfit (correct conclusion) contradicts the political bias exclusion.

My conclusion: the Jury system works, is absolutely necessary and may be our last defense against Marxist tyranny.

23 posted on 07/12/2011 10:31:49 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Holy flippin' crap, Sarah rocks the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Ten messed up cases vs how thousands of cases that worked out just fine.

You’re going to get the occasional messed up case.
That’s life.

You don’t tear up a system that has a failing rate of 0.0000000000000% or about that much.


24 posted on 07/12/2011 10:32:38 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Germany has a judge and two professional lay jurors, and all three work together to reach a decision and sentence.

But here I’d just be happy with a complete overhaul of voir dire. We should have consistently intelligent jurors, not the dumbest common denominator that we often end up with. For example, I know a lot about copyright law, and that is exactly why I will never be allowed to serve on a jury on a copyright case.


25 posted on 07/12/2011 10:36:03 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop
No system can get things right 100% of the time, I don't understand why anyone would believe otherwise.

It is better to allow some of the guilty to walk than to punish the innocent, and the system is slanted that way.

26 posted on 07/12/2011 10:48:20 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Trial by jury never worked.

If our age ceases to believe in trial by jury, than another fiction will be concocted to take its place, to create the illusion of justice to placate a restive citizenry by allowing their resentments from their private injuries, to be vicariously satisifed in the morality play called the Justice System.


27 posted on 07/12/2011 11:08:35 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

The jury system was never intended to be correct 100% of the time. No system of justice is, or can be. The Founders recognized this, and so they structured the system with a presumption of innocence, and provided enough protections to criminal defendants that the process, in many ways, errs on the side of innocence (that is, the system is designed to create more incorrect not guilty verdicts than incorrect guilty verdicts).


28 posted on 07/12/2011 11:28:49 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop
I also believe you're wrong about the "Fat Nick" case.

He was never charged with intent to carjacking or with trying to rob Minucci.

"Intent to [commit] carjacking" is not a crime, and there was no evidence that the guys had taken any steps towards carjacking or auto theft that night. They went to Howard Beach with the intent of doing so, sure, but had not yet done anything criminal.

Nick was not given a jury of peers but a multi ethnic jury

That's an absurd statement. The fact that the jury was "multi ethnic" does not mean it wasn't a jury of his peers.

29 posted on 07/12/2011 11:32:49 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The voir dire is the problem, as you correctly perceive. The selection should be far more random; among other things the defense and prosecution should be denied peremptory challenges. Allowing lawyers to build the kind of jury they want denies the right of the People and the defendant to a trial by actual peers, and in high profile cases denies the People and the defendant the right to a speedy trial.

Twelve random people might still have been as stupid on the facts and as clueless about the law as the Anthony Jury, but it is significantly less likely.

30 posted on 07/12/2011 11:38:18 AM PDT by FredZarguna (If you believe that only eyewitness to murder constitutes proof, you are being unreasonably stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Judges also like dumb-down voir dire because they want their absolute power to decide matters of law. They don’t want knowledgeable jurors being able to call BS on the judge’s instructions.


31 posted on 07/12/2011 11:44:26 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

“However, our entire trial/jury system is designed to be better to free a guilty person than to punish an innocent one...It was the prosecution’s case to lose and they did.”

Well put.


32 posted on 07/12/2011 11:57:16 AM PDT by Veritas_et_libertas (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Exactly. Casey is guilty of crimes, but the prosecutor failed to prove murder. IIRC he did manage to prove several others.

It would be a hell of thing if people could be sent to prison or death just because a screaming mob demanded it.


33 posted on 07/12/2011 12:19:33 PM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

>>>It would be a hell of thing if people could be sent to prison or death just because a screaming mob demanded it.<<<

Scott Peterson comes to mind. He was sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence with the prosecutors actively suppressing exculpatory evidence and testimony so I fully expect he’ll walk on appeal.


34 posted on 07/12/2011 1:17:17 PM PDT by MeganC (Are you better off than you were four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Circumstantial evidence is often better than eyewitness testimony. Humans are weird that way.
But a prosecutor sitting on exculpatory evidence should be criminal.


35 posted on 07/12/2011 1:27:40 PM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mainestategop

Now I see what blacks mean by ‘’Is it justice or ‘’just us?’’.


36 posted on 07/12/2011 6:05:43 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson