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 ...
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
(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 jury’s 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.htmlThe 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.
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.