Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge boots problem juror in Fla. terrorism case
AP via SFGate ^ | 5/5/9

Posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL

MIAMI (AP) -- An uncooperative juror has been replaced on the panel in Miami deliberating the case of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and attack FBI offices.

. . .
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard said Tuesday the juror had violated her duty by refusing to deliberate and casting doubt on the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alquaida; bombplot; domesticterroism; floriduh; libertycitysix; proterrorist; sears; searsbombing; searsbuildingplot; searstower; terrorsupporter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Lenard, Joan A.
Born 1952 in Amityville, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Nominated by William J. Clinton on September 29, 1995, to a seat vacated by James Lawrence King; Confirmed by the Senate on December 22, 1995, and received commission on December 26, 1995.

Education:
Rockland Community College, A.A., 1972

Roger Williams College, B.A., 1973

Antioch School of Law, J.D., 1976

Professional Career:
Office of the State Attorney, 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Dade County, 1976-1982
Assistant state attorney, 1976-1978
Chief, Consumer Fraud Division, 1978-1980
Chief, Consumer and Economic Crime Division, 1980-1982
Judge, Dade County Court, Florida, 1982-1993
Circuit judge, Family Division, 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, 1993-1995


Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

2 posted on 05/05/2009 8:29:55 AM PDT by SmithL (The Golden State demands all of your gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

And from Yesterday's Mimi Herald:
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard asked the juror, a black woman whose name has not been made public, to come to the courtroom to answer questions about her willingness to follow the law and apply it to the evidence in the case after fellow jurors accused the woman of refusing to deliberate. The incident caused the second, unrelated delay in deliberations, which began on April 27.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1032401.html
3 posted on 05/05/2009 8:38:16 AM PDT by SmithL (The Golden State demands all of your gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Two previous mistrials occurred when juries failed to reach verdicts.

"Houston, we have a problem."

4 posted on 05/05/2009 8:40:26 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

the juror, a black woman

waiting for the racism charge.....

In 5...4...3...


5 posted on 05/05/2009 8:40:56 AM PDT by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I don’t get it.


6 posted on 05/05/2009 8:46:41 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

Is this the group that Geraldo Rivera claimed were entrapped by the government? That an inside agent was behind the entire plot? Or was that a different Florida terrorist group?


7 posted on 05/05/2009 8:47:20 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Isn’t “casting doubt on the law” what jury nullification is? Not to say that it was warranted in this instance, because I don’t know what the trial was.


8 posted on 05/05/2009 8:48:32 AM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Islamofanatics" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

From UPI 2/18/09 article:

The men were arrested in June 2006 and charged with conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida.

Prosecutors say the group’s leader, Narseal Batiste, 34, sought an alliance with al-Qaida to stage major terror attacks in the United States.

All six of the defendants are construction laborers.

The jury for the new trial, which took three weeks to select, is comprised of four Hispanics, four blacks, three non-Hispanic whites and one juror of Iranian descent


9 posted on 05/05/2009 8:49:55 AM PDT by Voter62vb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And our Dear Leader doesn’t expect the same thing to happen when Gitmo terrorists are tried in US courts? If you believe that I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.


10 posted on 05/05/2009 8:50:47 AM PDT by Joiseydude (Kate Smith - God Bless America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCavKL2zdjM GREAT visual interpretatio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I haven’t heard the evidence in this case so I won’t even attempt to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendants, but this is beginning to look like a case of jury nullification. When a juror “casts doubt” on the law supposedly broken that juror is (hopefully) acting in response to his/her conscience. That’s the way it’s supposed to be but you’ll find precious few judges who will approve.


11 posted on 05/05/2009 8:51:31 AM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Another reason why we can not try terrorists in domestic courts with any assurance that justice will be done.

“Jury Nullification” -— just like the OJ Jury, will happen frequently.


12 posted on 05/05/2009 8:52:27 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

When a juror “casts doubt” on the law supposedly broken that juror is (hopefully) acting in response to his/her conscience.

LOL! She is acting in accord with her race.


13 posted on 05/05/2009 8:56:41 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Jurors have the absolute right to judge the LAW as well as the Fact in Controversy.
John Jay our first Supreme Court Justice
I might add that nearly Every Supreme Court Justice has said the same thing.

also see William Penn


14 posted on 05/05/2009 8:57:45 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

I agree to a point.

I also think that the OJ Jury was a disgrace.

Where terrorism is concerned, the risk of “Jury Nullification” as well as the release of intelligence information in the trial, are reasons to go with Military Tribunals for those accused of treason, terrorism or any similar “crime”.


15 posted on 05/05/2009 9:04:30 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

But she’s not trying to even deliberate this case, this isn’t jury nullification, it’s inappropriate bias toward the defendants.


16 posted on 05/05/2009 9:07:29 AM PDT by DeLaine (If love were oil, I'd be a quart low)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Maybe I am completely wrong, but this reminds me of the OJ syndrome.

And.. also of the Duke LaCrosse syndrome, and all the other black criminals who are heroes in the minds of all too many black people. If the victim is perceived as “whitey”, it is likely that there will be a black bigot on the jury.

My prediction is that they are going to reap what they have sown.


17 posted on 05/05/2009 9:13:39 AM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen ( A Plague on Those Who Support Racial Preferences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

I’ve got no problem with jury nullification. However, it seems to me that it should occur only after deliberation, and she should be trying to convice the other jurors to follow her thought processes, not whine about “negativity”.

When you are acting negatively, that is what you should cheerfully expect to get from others.


18 posted on 05/05/2009 9:21:22 AM PDT by chesley (A pox on both their houses. I've voted for my last RINO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DeLaine

so she is accused of bias. what jury is not biased????
if you believe the law is WRONG, you must not find guilty. It dont mater what teh laws says, it matters if it is right or not. that is the nice thing about the jury system. non-lawyers can decide if the law is good or not.

this is a right we have as jurors. most folks are not aware of this.

lets say the hate crime law is passed, and you get on a jury for a hate crime. if you dont belive in hate crimes (un-Constitutional) then you should find them not guilty, even if they did exactly what the prosecuter says they did.

if the law is bad, you have an obligation to stike it down in that case

the people must be involved to stop judical and prosecutor abuse of the Constitution.

when you are on the jury, you must uphold the Constitution first, not some laws passed by politicans or activist judges.

No judge has the right to remove a juror based on that jurors belief that the LAW IS WRONG. this judge should be kicked off the bench.


19 posted on 05/05/2009 9:39:04 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I was on a jury once where a woman refused to participate in good faith. It was a very ugly, frustrating experience, and we ended up as a hung jury, 11-1.

We finally put a guy molesting his own kids back on the street because of it.

20 posted on 05/05/2009 10:15:44 AM PDT by willgolfforfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“casting doubt on the law”

Three guesses about what this juror’s politics was.


21 posted on 05/05/2009 10:28:24 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhm914

ok. Conversely, if you are a racist or muslim, you can decide the law is wrong if it doesn’t favor your side.

Thanks for the info.


22 posted on 05/05/2009 11:30:12 AM PDT by DeLaine (If love were oil, I'd be a quart low)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Now that’s something I don’t know about. According to one account I read, the juror is black but nothing was said about the defendants. You might be right...


23 posted on 05/05/2009 1:30:12 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dhm914
No judge has the right to remove a juror based on that jurors belief that the LAW IS WRONG.

LOL! Nitwit - every judge has the right to do exactly that, and every juror swears an oath to uphold the law no matter how he or she feels about that law. - it is called swearing in the jury

Try to study law before you spout off like this.

this judge should be kicked off the bench.
Never, ever happen. - Who could do such a thing?

24 posted on 05/05/2009 2:36:05 PM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
When a juror “casts doubt” on the law supposedly broken that juror is (hopefully) acting in response to his/her conscience. That’s the way it’s supposed to be but you’ll find precious few judges who will approve.

That's the way it's supposed to be????

Morally, how is that any different from an activist judge who legislates from the bench, based on HIS conscience?

The only difference is where the individual is sitting, but the result is the same: Ignore the law and make it all about ME! ...MY beliefs of right and wrong. ...MY morals.

Jury nullification is EXACTLY as reprehensible as judicial activism. Both of them ignore the rule of law, replacing it with the rule of ONE, or a FEW.

The proper place for conscience and moral judgment is during the LEGISLATION of the law. Once the law has been created by those elected by the people, NO judge OR JUROR has the right to single-handedly overthrow the will of those voters or their elected representatives.

Nobody has that right. Nobody who loves the Constitution should ever consider doing it.

25 posted on 05/05/2009 2:48:23 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TChris

You sound like a judge, or at least a prosecuting attorney.


26 posted on 05/05/2009 5:32:31 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
You sound like a judge, or at least a prosecuting attorney.

No on both counts.

Do you think judges and jurors should be bound by the law or not? Once you decide they should NOT be, then its just a question of who you ask, to find out which laws will be ignored.

27 posted on 05/05/2009 6:55:16 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Morally, how is that any different from an activist judge who legislates from the bench, based on HIS conscience?

It's completely different. Jurors have the obligation to judge both the facts AND the Law. That's been inherent in our Judicial system since it's very inception.

If Jurors were supposed to be robots and simply decide facts we wouldn't need them.

L

28 posted on 05/05/2009 6:58:09 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
It's completely different. Jurors have the obligation to judge both the facts AND the Law. That's been inherent in our Judicial system since it's very inception.

You need to read the posts leading up to this.

The issue is jury nullification, which is to say the conscious decision by a jury to disregard the law.

I agree with your description of what a jury is supposed to do, but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism. It's blatant disregard for the law in favor of one's personal beliefs.

29 posted on 05/05/2009 7:00:56 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TChris
The issue is jury nullification, which is to say the conscious decision by a jury to disregard the law.

You're exactly right.

but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism.

No, it's not.

30 posted on 05/05/2009 7:13:44 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
> ...but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism.

No, it's not.

Just because you say so?

At least I explained WHY I find them equally wrong.

31 posted on 05/05/2009 7:15:51 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Actually, a juror has that right.

Jury nullification is the answer to elected representatives overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and the answer to judges who refuse to enforce those bounds. Even the SCOTUS has acknowledged it.

Otherwise, the jury box wouldn’t be included in the litany “Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge” axiom.


32 posted on 05/05/2009 7:28:15 PM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
Actually, a juror has that right.

Jury nullification is the answer to elected representatives overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and the answer to judges who refuse to enforce those bounds. Even the SCOTUS has acknowledged it.

The SCOTUS notwithstanding, I strongly disagree.

Once that particular horse is out of the barn, there's nothing to keep jurors from ignoring the law for any reason they deem worthy.

It's all well and good to imagine cases where legislation is unconstitutional and has somehow managed to pass judicial review, and that twelve people could somehow CREATE better law in a few days than everyone else did, but I propose that there are MANY more ways for that process to go wrong than right.

Else why bother with such large, elected legislative bodies? Creating law with committees of twelve, chosen by lawyers, would be so much more efficient!

It's the same spirit as judicial activism. I'm quite certain that activist judges feel every bit as morally justified in their actions as a juror correcting an unconstitutional wrong.

33 posted on 05/05/2009 8:12:31 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TChris
You might strongly disagree, but you'd be strongly wrong.

Juries do not create law. They merely judge it. Many judges abhor the idea (as do you)that mere citizens are competent to judge whether a law meets the definition of ‘good’ law. But history is replete with laws passed by those “large, elected legislative bodies” that do not pass muster. Zengler was the first on this continent, but not the last.

What you are telling me is that you would have sent a slave back to be flogged to death for running away. That was the ‘law’ at the time. You would vote to send members of this site to prison if Napolitano and Obama manage to pass a law stating that members of this site are extremist criminals by dint of belief alone. And ‘judges’ like Sotomayor decided that it was a good law and upheld it.

Yeah. Law. Made by political lawyers, for political lawyers. Upheld by lawyers who golf with politicians.

34 posted on 05/05/2009 8:33:37 PM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TChris

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
R.A. Heinlein

That’s kinda the way I am and probably why I’m no longer called for jury duty. I once told a court in voir dire that I would not neccesarily believe what the judge claimed the law to be. Judges are human beings and are just as apt to have wrong opinions as I but I trusted mine more than his.


35 posted on 05/05/2009 9:00:46 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
Juries do not create law. They merely judge it.

Not when they decide to nullify the law. That's exactly the point! At that point, they DO effectively create--or destroy--law, by rendering judgment in opposition to the law and the evidence in order to sidestep a law they don't like.

It's exactly what activist judges do: effectively alter the law to fit their own ideas.

Many judges abhor the idea (as do you)that mere citizens are competent to judge whether a law meets the definition of ‘good’ law.

It has nothing to do with what the judges think! Do you believe the Constitution or not? The Constitution establishes how and by whom laws are created. It has nothing to do with whether or not a judge likes it; it's the supreme law of the land!

Does the Constitution come with an asterisk at the end, referring to a footnote that reads, "Except when you don't like the result" ?

Changes to the law should be made in the legislature. Period.

Bad laws? Plenty of them. Fix them in congress!

What ever failures have been made using the legislative process, there is NO evidence that a group of twelve random people will make up something better.

But history is replete with laws passed by those “large, elected legislative bodies” that do not pass muster. Zengler was the first on this continent, but not the last.

But, you seem to miss the point.

Once you accept the principle of jury nullification, you can't pick and choose when and how it will be used.

What if your jury finds private ownership of guns morally reprehensible? What happens when the jury nullifies self-defense laws and convicts you of murder for killing that home intruder?

It all sounds quite noble when the examples you cite deal with historical slavery, but those cases are history. Discussion of them is academic. What matters today is how a jury which could easily be made up entirely of liberal Democrats would use such power.

THAT is something that happens today.

I think the very fabric of our nation depends on the rule of law. Once you open the Pandora's box of ignoring the duly legislated law, for what ever reason and by what ever means, then you erode and attack the very principles that made our country what it is.

It's naked hypocrisy to condemn judges for creating law out of whole cloth, rightly demanding that the will of the people as enacted by elected legislators be held supreme, then applauding juries who accomplish essentially the same evil through different means.

36 posted on 05/05/2009 10:25:34 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
That’s kinda the way I am and probably why I’m no longer called for jury duty. I once told a court in voir dire that I would not neccesarily believe what the judge claimed the law to be. Judges are human beings and are just as apt to have wrong opinions as I but I trusted mine more than his.

Well, I can certainly appreciate the court's decision. :-)

37 posted on 05/05/2009 10:26:47 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Juries don’t create law. The juries are empowered to judge both facts and law. That is why we have juries, and not just a panel of judges. So your claim that juries create law by destroying it shows just what a massive stretch you need to make in order to claim that jury nullification is somehow ‘unConstitutional’.

No, one cannot pick and choose when jury nullification is used. Tis the beauty of the system. As for cases that aren’t too old for your tastes, I present Heller and Kelo as perfect cases where jury nullification would have been desirable. Heller finally had an almost desirable outcome, and Kelo is a disaster. And very little has been done to correct it, even after public outcry.

You and I will never see eye to eye on this. That much is clear. Enjoy the day.


38 posted on 05/06/2009 5:17:09 AM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TChris
The SCOTUS notwithstanding, I strongly disagree.

Well then it's obvious that you have a ready made excuse to get out of Jury duty.

Just plead 'diminished capacity'.

You obviously aren't bright enough to understand our Legal system.

39 posted on 05/06/2009 7:08:17 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

and lets say a radio station is brought up on charges they did not follow obamas fairness doctrine rules, that the station did not give equal time to a counterpoint view. would you vote that the radio station is guilty or innocent? lets say you believe the fairness doctrine is Un-Constitutional (freedom of speech) are you telling me that you would go with the Un-Constitutional law, over the Constitution????

how about some one in trouble for lets say refusing to perfrom a gay wedding, maybe a preacher is being sued, or a wedding photographer. lets say the laws says they cant discriminate, and they indeed did. however you believe that they should have freedom of association, and should not be forced into this. (ie the dicrimination law is wrong) would you vote guilty or not guilty (I’d vote not guilty)

More and more we have liberal Un-Constitutional laws imposed on us. If we belive the law is wrong, we have a DUTY to vote not guilty.

if more jurors did that, we would have less bad laws.
It is the right and duty of the jury to see if the law is right or not. to convict someone when you know the law to be un-constitutional is immoral.

dont let any judge try to force you to accept the law just becuase it is case law or the politicans imposed that law on us.
for another example, how about laws made by the judical branch (activist judges laws) in these cases, one can rightfully argue that the judical branch has no authority to make laws, that power is for the people and politicans to make. judges only apply the law, not write the law.

so you have a case where you must decide guilt or not for a law made up by an activist judge. do you go with the activist judges law, or do you ignore that law, becuase it was made outside of the constitutional constraints we have aginst judges making law???

It is a slippery slope when we prevert the justice system to prevent jurors from deciding if the law is right or not. that is part of the jurors job. that is one of the main reasons we have the protection of the jury system, to give one more defense agisnt un-constitutional laws.

we read of so many guilty verdicts for stupid laws, technical violations etc... too bad more jurors are not informed of their right to make sure the law is right.

technical violations of gun laws are one more example. how about the guy that technically violated the machine gun law, beucase his old worn Non-machine gun did double fire. Yes techinically his gun did indeed double fire (or was made to double fire by the feds) and there is no provision in the law for excusses like a worn gun, or bad ammo etc.. so strictly speaking he must be found guilty. a smart jury how ever should look at that law and say hey. this law was not meant to go after accidental mutlishots, even though there is no provision for excuses, it is still wrong. Id vote not guilty, even though the law was broken by him. the fact is the law IS broken, (as in the law itself was wrong)
the jury system is the final check to prevent abuse of bad laws on people. it is the final say in the power of the people to override bad law.

most if not near all judges do not want you to think like that. however you have a moral obligation to sort out if the law is just or not, if the law is Constitutional or not, if the law should be applied or not in that case.

with all the bad laws coming down the pike from activist judges, liberal un-Conbstitutional believing politians, and the like, you better pray he have juries that will look at if the law is just or not, rather than blinding following some judges order.

that is your moral Constitutional obligation.


40 posted on 05/06/2009 9:29:41 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TChris

and if the law is Un-Constitutional? you still would vote to convict??? Just becuase the legislature votes for it does not make it constitutinal.

seems like you are giving up a lot of power of teh people and giving it BLINDLY to judges and politicians. YOU have the JURY power to stop conviction of folks for bad laws.

just wait until we get more obama type Un-constitutional laws. you might change your tune.


41 posted on 05/06/2009 9:34:22 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TChris

you say fix bad laws in congress. well that is just fine and dandy. you convict some one beucase you go with the law as written (even though you know it is wrong)ok will you take the time now to lobby that law be changed??? how long will that take??? will that person you just convicted for breaking the un-constitutinal law be rotting in jail while you work out the details with Congress (a bunch of law breaking bastards for the most part)???

some how that does not seem right to allow a citizen rot in jail while Congress gets around to fixing the law.

that is why we have juries, they can immediatly rectifiy a bad law and prevent the jailing of a person that broke no constitutional law. this is the final safety check for bad laws. we all now how many times politicans pass laws that even the judges eventually overturn as being unconsitutional. but in you view would it really be better for a citizen to rot in jail while it is being worked out???
that citizen will never ever get that time back. you are immoral to vote to jail someone over an Un-constitituional law.

I can only pray that one day folks like you will be on the wrong side of a liberal politicans law, and see how you would like it if you had a jury that does not look at the Constitutinal ramification of that bad law. hell rot in jail until Congress fixes it.

bad bad bad.


42 posted on 05/06/2009 9:44:12 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dhm914
and if the law is Un-Constitutional?

You write as though it's a simple thing to judge a law unconstitutional. If it was that simple and obvious when a law was unconstitutional, we wouldn't really need the Supreme Court, would we?

you still would vote to convict???

I would vote according to the law and the evidence presented at trial. That's what jurors are sworn to do, and I would do my best to keep that oath.

Could you kindly show my in the Constitution where a juror is given the authority to do anything else? ...or where a juror is granted authority to disregard or effectively modify the law?

seems like you are giving up a lot of power of teh people and giving it BLINDLY to judges and politicians.

If that power is a bad thing, then you have a problem with the Constitution. The people GRANT that power to "judges and politicians" because that's what the Constitution has established.

YOU have the JURY power to stop conviction of folks for bad laws.

Bad laws, according to WHOM? There's no universal definition of "bad law". That's exactly the problem!

If EVERYONE agrees that it's a "bad law", then getting it changed in the legislature should be at least possible, even if difficult.

just wait until we get more obama type Un-constitutional laws. you might change your tune.

I can hate the laws without trashing the process.

We all agree that congress creates a lot of junk. But we DON'T all agree on which ones ARE junk.

A juror has the sworn, moral duty to apply the law to the evidence and reach a decision. If he ignores the law of the land, substituting his OWN law, then he has violated his sacred oath and is no better than a judge who substitutes HIS own law.

43 posted on 05/06/2009 10:53:59 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dhm914
you say fix bad laws in congress. well that is just fine and dandy. you convict some one beucase you go with the law as written (even though you know it is wrong)

What about a jury who KNOWS that citizens having guns is wrong? (It's not hard to imagine 12 people coming together who feel that way.) Are you OK with being convicted of murder because that jury nullified the self-defense laws of your state? After all, they KNOW those laws are wrong.

ok will you take the time now to lobby that law be changed??? how long will that take??? will that person you just convicted for breaking the un-constitutinal law be rotting in jail while you work out the details with Congress (a bunch of law breaking bastards for the most part)???

That's the process the Constitution has established. Do you suggest we throw out the Constitution and do it all differently?

44 posted on 05/06/2009 10:59:19 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TChris

well we have a supreme court, once said slavery was legal, guess if you where teh slave you would be all right with that, and wait for someone to change the law in congress eventually. meanwhile get picking that cotton, the wheels of congress are turning, maybe one day they will correct the law.

is not the jury there to correct bad law? or is bad law ok with you, You can wait until the politicans fix it. meanwhile someone is rotting in jail.

no thanks. if you think it is right ot put a man in jail for a bad un-consitituional law, then you are a tryant, an immoral tyrant. we cannot lock up people and hope the bad laws are fixed later. the jury is your chance to right these wrongs. i swear to uphold the constitution as the highest law, not some law the legislature or judge came up with. if there is a conflict in my eyes, i go with teh Constitution.

Obama and the liberals need more jurors like you. ones that dont regard the Constitution as anymore than an old document. Jurors that blindly follow what liberal constitution hating politicans have to say about law.

heck to turn it around on you, why have a jury, we got a supreme court, let judges decide your fate????


45 posted on 05/06/2009 11:05:49 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TChris

duh, listen to this, it is not about juries convicting peole of crimes they did not get charged with. the jury has in its power to free men form bad laws, not convict a man of a law he i not charged with by teh government.

the jury protects men from un-constitional laws imposd by the government. never would I say the jury should be able to convict a man for a crime that is not already listed as a crime.

your thinking is not clear here. I say the jury has teh power to free a man from a bad law based ontheir own choice. a never contended that a jury can convict a man of a law that they make up themselves.

dont twist this arguement that way. the jury can protect you from a bad government, the jury should never be used to make a new law up, just becuase some juror wants to. it only works one way.

we are created with certain inalianable Rights. the government can take them rights when we break laws, it is the jury that can have the final say as to if that law should be applied or not. I never said the jury can find its own law to charge you with and convict. do not confuse these two thoughts. they is apples and oranges, cart before the horse
Only teh government makes the charge, it is up to the jury to decide is the law applies in that case or not. they cannot make up their own charges. they cannot make up laws, but thay can ignore bad ones. there is a distinct differenace here.


46 posted on 05/06/2009 11:13:31 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dhm914
is not the jury there to correct bad law? or is bad law ok with you...

OK, I've responded to this at least three times now. It appears that you're going to keep ignoring my answer, so I won't waste my time any further.

47 posted on 05/06/2009 1:26:08 PM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TChris

well, your answer is wrong. not that i ignore it.


48 posted on 05/07/2009 9:01:43 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dhm914
well, your answer is wrong. not that i ignore it.

My answer is wrong? Really?

So then, there IS a universally accepted definition of your term "bad law", and EVERYONE will agree which ones are bad?

49 posted on 05/07/2009 9:30:03 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TChris

i suggest you dont waste your time, you dead wrong, and wont change my mind. four times now, give it up. I go by teh Constitution in jury casaes, not what some politican or judge made up. Some laws are bad, and I will not convict anyone of them. it is your duty to not convict for bad laws. anything less is immoral.


50 posted on 05/09/2009 9:13:59 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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