Skip to comments.Student brought to court in chains for shirking jury duty
Posted on 04/28/2010 6:35:52 AM PDT by Orange1998
A 19-year-old college freshman missed class Tuesday when a federal judge decided to teach her a civics lesson by ordering federal marshals to haul her in chains from school to court to explain why she shirked jury duty.
Kelsey Gloston stood in ankle and wrist restraints in court Tuesday afternoon wearing flip flops, a tight white T-shirt, short-shorts and sporting green streaks in her hair. Though she rolled her eyes and looked impatient while waiting for the judge, once U.S. District Judge David Hittner took the bench her tears flowed.
The judge was incensed that the teen had hung up on jury clerks calling to get her to the courthouse.
You in effect went right at the jury folks and said you'd have nothing to do with it, Hittner said sternly. I'm going to hear exactly what your problem is with jury duty and what your problem is with how our country operates.
The judge released Gloston, who said she's a pre-nursing student at Lone Star College's Cy-Fair campus, to return with a lawyer for a hearing Thursday on whether he should find her in contempt and possibly detain her.
Gloston is not the typical jury duty scofflaw. She did not entirely ignore her jury summons.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
The ONLY instructions a Jury should ever receive are to read a modern edited transcript and notes of the trial of William Penn in London September 1670.
where are the libs on this one?
Care to clarify?
The Imperial Government needs to make examples for the peons, FEAR you massa gubbermint!!
Judge Vader is not amused, young Rebel.
This judge needs to be chained up in a public square
Present right out of the gate, Father planning to sue. The problem is kids today are not taught any respect. Since the dad will not correct her... the Judge will.
It ain’t hard to get out of jury duty.
“Father intends to sue.”
That’s all you need to know about why she ended up the way she did.
The Judge did the exact right thing. Illegally Shirking your duty is one thing; giving an attitude to the court when they try to contact her and accomodate her is unacceptable.
All she had to do to get out of jury duty is mention that she’s aware of the 1895 supreme court decision in the 1895 Sparf vs The US case and there isn’t a prosecutor in the country who would allow her to serve on a jury.
I agree. Seems young people today have no respect for anyone or any institution. Public schools, I guess.
A pair of deputies came to my parents' house in Texas one time to haul me off to court for failing to appear for jury duty. Unfortunately, they hadn't checked their records closely enough to see that I had married (changed my name, no longer lived at that address, info that had been filed with the DMV and voter registrar's office). I'm sure they would have handcuffed me and hauled me off to the courthouse had I been there, as my mother said they were not very polite about the situation. Too bad they had no jurisdiction in Minnesota, where my husband and I had moved a couple of years earlier.
I’m deaf as a rock, but that doesn’t get me out of jury duty.
What does get me thrown off Jury Duty is my hard line against drug abusers. I hate illegal drug users, and I’m apparently a minority out there in our country today.
her myspace? :
Quite frankly the bulk of the American jury pool is dumber than a sack of hammers when it comes to jury duty anyway. and the Sparf Vs the USA case proves that the courts like it that way.
After all, what legitimate reason could the courts have for deciding that jurors don’t need to be informed of their rights?
“...wearing flip flops, a tight white T-shirt, short-shorts and sporting green streaks in her hair. Though she rolled her eyes and looked impatient while waiting for the judge...”
The problem is - whose “peer” is she?
You're supposed to know them. Therefore the Court is under no obligation to educate you.
If the girl in the article is the same person as is the person on the Facebook page, then I have to ask exactly how old she is. Daddy says “she’s 19”, yet the Facebook page says she is 18 and 21. Someone is a bit confused.
By the way, what up wit all da posin’ by da yung men? Da all be lookin’ tuff an stylin’.
As a courtesy and an educational aid, could you be so kind as to post a link to the case or a summary of it? What was the decision and how is it important to us.
(Really this should be done when any case is referenced, some of us don't know where or how to find that data. Thanks)
A link or summary would be incredibly useful here. Thanks
Does that person now own the Courthouse? I would.
(And some reference points from over the years.)
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ....(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction....”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.
U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has....”unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
JOHN JAY (1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789): “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (Horning v. District of Columbia, 249 U.S. 596 (1920)): “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”
U.S. SUPREME COURT (State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4): “...it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Instead she chose the “whatever” defense. Yeesh.
At the conclusion of the trial the jury retired to deliberate its verdict. Upon the jurys return, foreman Edward Bushnell reported to the court simply that the jury found that William Penn had spoken on the street, which was no violation of the law at all.Here is a contemporaneous account of the trial: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/penntrial.html
The judge was outraged and overcome with anger. He commanded the jury to retire again and render the verdict of guilt. Nevertheless, the jury returned and again stated that the verdict was that Mr. Penn had simply spoken on a street and not violated any law. The indignant judge confined the jury to the hole, in Newgate Prison, and instructed the foreman Bushnell that the jury would remain in the hole without food or water until a proper verdict was rendered.
Three more times the jury went out and returned the same verdict. When the jurors persisted in refusing to go out any more, the judge fined each of them and ordered them imprisoned until the fines were paid.
... Such harsh treatment was not unprecedented. Juries in 1670 were very much under the thumb of the Crown: if a jury delivered a result that was unsatisfactory to the Crown, jurors were imprisoned and fined. ...
The William Penn trial helped establish the principle of jury independence, which remains vital to our democracy. A jury stands between the arbitrary power of the state and the rights and liberties of individuals.
[excerpted from http://www.shapirosher.com/news/TrialofWilliamPenn.htm]
A Juries discretion in chambers is unfettered. They must disobey or disregard, as a high civic duty, any overreaching judicial instruction, and such overreaching instruction is common in our day.
ONLY a Jury can determine not only the facts applied to the law, but whether the law, whether stated in code or established in habit as common law should apply in a given case.
A Jury should not accept any Judge's wording that states "if A then B MUST be found" such as in "If you find that the man held the victim with purpose you MUST find for GUILT on the count of unlawful restraint". It may take it as loose guidance, but a Jury is NOT bound such instruction.
Why do I say this? Based on the example of the citizen Jury in the Trial of William Penn.
Yes, there is the fact of jury nullification.
If you are on a jury, you can find a perp “not guilty,” even if they broke a “law,” if you believe that law violates common law and is illegitimate.
If you fellow FReeper, for instance, is charged with open carry in California -
and he is “guilty,” -
but you believe he actually does have the right to carry a loaded gun openly, and that the law is bogus -
you can acquit him.
All this talk about jury avoidance! Our juries should be filled with FReepers! Get out there!
Perhaps the judge can correct the father as well since he appears to subsidize his daughters stupidity.
Google “the trial of william penn”.
It reveals the power of a jury and the willingness of a jury to stand up to a corrupt judge and an unjust law.
Last jury pool I was in the judge swore out a bench warrant on somebody who did this. Put me down for no sympathy. Jury duty is a civic obligation and it’s the only thing that keeps the courts supervised. If you have a problem with imperial courts, don’t yammer about it, participate.
I was a full-time mom and it specifically said that lack of child care was not an excuse. They thought differently when I showed up bringing my then 3 y.o. son with me.
Chains. I don’t think so. Is this what we have progressed to
I did not shirk my jury duty and spent more than a year on a grand jury. While I regarded it as a civic duty, what irked me was that the measly $40 per day we were paid was taxable on my federal income tax and was enough to push me into a higher tax bracket. Perhaps if we wanted to help in the process Congress could exempt the money paid for jury service from all income taxes.
You're definitely not the minority, otherwise the country would start unraveling a lot of the really awful side-effects that like-minded people have caused. There are so many people making money off of the drug war that I don't think you have to worry about us changing drug strategy any time soon.
“I was a full-time mom and it specifically said that lack of child care was not an excuse. They thought differently when I showed up bringing my then 3 y.o. son with me.”
Well, you are from Crazyfornia, and this is in Texas. Texas law allows exemption for child care. (One more reason to live in the Lone Star State.)
I would be terrified of not showing up for jury duty. I have gotten out of jury duty for legitimate reasons, but if they didn’t excuse me, I would show up even if I didn’t like being there. It’s better than going to jail.
In our jurisdiction, if you have a child under 5, you are automatically excused.
Which means juries are composed of people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty.
I got a pass a number of years ago when I was breast-feeding. The jury staff were a little touchy about it; they said I could pump breast milk and have someone else in daycare give it to my son. I pointed out that my son had a serious chronic health condition and no daycare center or babysitter would assume the risk of caring for him. They gave me a pass for three years.
When my boy was three, however, I made no excuses, found a sitter, and was quite willing to serve. It's not impossible to find a sitter for a few days.
A lot of it's based on the fact that the courthouse people tend to treat you like absolute dogsh*t, with their "We own you" attitude.
I was owned for three weeks a couple of years ago, and will do everything in my power to avoid being imprisoned like that again.
Personally I think jurors should be required to know their rights and duties as a juror. If jurors knew that they could call witnesses, cross examine, decide what is and isn’t admissible, our whole court system would be transformed back to a better system.
Think about it. No more past conviction evidence being declared inadmissible. No more mandatory sentencing. We may not always get the outcome we want but we would get the outcome the jury desires. In fact its quite clear from the words of Jefferson, Adams and others, that in a jury, law isn’t as important as a clear juror conscience.
You are not as alone as you might think.
This was her first mistake.
>>A lot of it’s based on the fact that the courthouse people tend to treat you like absolute dogsh*t, with their “We own you” attitude.
I was owned for three weeks a couple of years ago, and will do everything in my power to avoid being imprisoned like that again.<<
I showed up in my normal attire, a Western style snap shirt, clean blue jeans, 2” wide leather belt with an old brass buckle and my polished boots. The defense attorney asked my name and excused me. The County didn’t call again for sixteen years. The next court appearance mimicked the first one.
Conservatives are not appreciated in courtrooms or at least that’s my conclusion.
My daughter born, raised and a resident of California is attending college in New York City. She does live and works part time in New York. She has a California drivers license, votes in California and intends to return to California upon graduation. She is legally a citizen of California. Seven months ago she received a jury summons from the county superior court. Using the provided form we applied to postpone her duty. The form allows us to say she is a student which we did. We have phoned, written, provided at their request a certified letter from the college, which the school did. We just submitted a new packet, the jury people returned the university’s letter to us with no explanation. We have to telephone again. The point being these courts are out of control on the jury service issue. The legal system is so fouled up that no one takes pride in serving hence the courts are now compelling in typical fouled up fashion the use of hours of time to establish what common sense would grant.
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.