Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.
MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.
At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.
The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.
Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.
Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.
"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.
Um-kay.
Fanatics.
Ping.
What is it with your obssession with DWI? Been arrested a few too many times on it?
Twice for me. Thank God I never killed anyone before I wised up.
Never been arrested, don't drink, but I get "checkpointed" on a regular basis, and am sick of it.
The other part is that I am one of many who believe that MADD has done more damage to this country and our Constitution than any terrorist attack or combination of attacks ever could.
Lobbying jurors is against the law, too, I believe.
Specifically lobbying juries is probably illegal, but it is not illegal to set up shop near the courthouse and catch any and all whom come by. How many protests take place near the courthouse?
And before you ask, no, I've never gotten a DWI and neither has anyone close to me.
Right! They weren't at the courthouse to influence juries; it was just a coincidence! What a bunch of screwballs.
>>>"Lobbying jurors is against the law, too, I believe"<<<
Yes but if it "SAVES ONE LIFE!" sarcasm/off
It's spelled Fascists.
Copy that. Highly succesful ones also.
They're no different than the Sarah Brady gun grabber types.
This frantic rhetoric tells me all I need to know - you're either a ideological fanatic, or you actually do drink and drive, but are just smart enough not to admit it on the internet. But your obssession with DWI - this being the second post by you about DWI's, and I haven't been stalking you - is clearly abnormal.
Spend some time looking at the damage done by DWI, and you'll see the compelling need for harsh DWI penalties. I've seen enough of the damage to know that it is a crime that needs to be taken more seriously. It maims the innocent, leaving the guilty unharmed.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from them. The average person, innocent of any wrongdoing, would consider being stopped at a checkpoint to be at most a minor inconvenience. Weighed against the compelling government interest in maintaining highway safety, DWI checkpoints are well-justified to all but the ideologues.
A brief, 1-minute stop on the highway is martial law? You have no idea what martial law is, do you?
Used to drink heavily and drove when I probably should not have but thank God, I never hurt anyone or myself though I did crumple a fender one. (Just for full disclosure.)
I agree with you on the checkpoints. It's a huge expenditure of money and manpower that could be put to much better use without violating the Constitution. And .08 is simply ridiculous. The problem area is at about twice that level.
They took a good idea that promoted awareness and now just use it as a revenue generator without regard to the financial devastation to an individual who did no harm.
Truly drunk drivers should be pulled over and ticketed and the fines should be severe. Checkpoints net approximately 2 or 3 people drinkers out of every 100 vehicles stopped. Not only is that unacceptable, but roving patrols catch more drunk drivers than checkpoints.
"Fanatics."
I have dealt with MADD and find them to be only slightly more radical than PETA, ELF, etc.
Unbending ... "Well, you didn't have a daughter murdered by a drunk!" Nor did she, her daughter was driving 90MPH+ and ran a light. She broadsided a guy who was headed home after having a beer. His BAC was under legal limit. You do understand that the DUI stats include even not-at-fault drivers who have been drinking.
Radical NUTS.
Another told me that anyone who drinks should be put to death.
The founder of MADD was later stopped and charged with DUI.
"I agree with you on the checkpoints. It's a huge expenditure of money and manpower that could be put to much better use without violating the Constitution. And .08 is simply ridiculous. The problem area is at about twice that level. "
Correct. Bravery usually doesn't occur until about 0.12 BAC!
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.