Judge boots problem juror in Fla. terrorism case

AP via SFGate ^ | 5/5/9

[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.

[dhm914]

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.

[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)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.

[TChris]

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.

[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)

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?

[dhm914]

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????

[dhm914]

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.

[TChris]

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.

[dhm914]

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

[TChris]

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?

[dhm914]

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.

[dhm914]

lets say your on a jury to decide the fate of a good citizen for violating the conceled weapons law in california. (where your Second Admendment Right is perverted by the anti-gun laws) he has the gun for protection, he is a nice family man, say he has been mugged before, the nieghborhood is dangerous, and he takes it with him for a walk, he has no crimminal record.

I would vote NOT guilty. becuase I do not belive the state has the right to deny a citezen to carry a gun.

same would be for a multi count robber. lets say he is charged with assult, kidnapping, robbery, havng a conceled weapon, speeding, resisting arrest. I would vote guilty for all but eh concelled weapons charge if I believed he did do all the “crimes” just is a conceled weapons law to me is not legal.
now we get to other laws like “Hate Crimes” how you could morally vote to convict someone of a “hate crime” even knowing full well that they did indeed break teh so called “law” is beyond me. I would NEVER convict anyone of a hate crime law violation period!!! We need 10% of the jurors to have that attitude, that would make that law too difficult to prosecute, and hence prosectutions for hate crimes would go down. If we all ac like unthinking immoral sheep, and follow the law as decreeded by the government, ignoring our own morals and Consititutional Rights, we will be no better than thoose evil folks that make the bad laws.

are you ok with “hate crime” laws??? restictive Un-Constitutional gun laws???

if we blindly give in to these bad laws as a juror, we are sowing the seeds of our destruction. I dont have no law dictonary to give you a “bad law” defination, but I have named some bad laws that jurors must decide the fate of good people on.

The Juror is one check and balance in the system. the juror has the power and the moral obligation to vote for what is right, and that more and more is not the same as the “law”.

I wonder how spineless you would be in a hate crime case?, a free speech case (fairness doctrine, abortion protest?) a gun technicallity law case (anti-2nd admend.)?? or any other over reaching morally wrong law.

We the People are the masters of government, not the other way around, We judge the People. the Jury system of common People are a check against / prosecutorial judical abuse. this moral obligation must be upheld, to free those charged with bad laws

frankly if you can’t name even ONE bad law, your no conservative, and have no friends here. The thing is, would you convict someone of a bad law?? If the answer is yes, then you have failed your patriotic duty to ensure freedom for all.

When laws are correct and moral, then you can decide to convict if the evidence supports that vote. if there are extenuating circumstances, then that is up to you to take into consideration also. but you must NEVER convict for a bad law, ever!!!

Back to the first story, the nice man up on charges for the gun law violation in strict anti-gun california. lets say lots of folks get on juries with this kind of case, and always vote innocent. how long until prosecutors give up on charging folks for a crime they can never get a conviction for???? what if the citizens peacefully rebel, by simply NOT CONVICTING folks for bad laws????? think about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!we vote on the jury to rid ourselves of bad laws. the legislative process is broken, the politicans have ignored the Bill of Rightds for decades. we can not fix it overnight, will you allow a good man to rot in jail, while awaiting the law to be fixed by our swift moving politicans??? Don’t hold your breath. the jury box is best way to wreck havoc on bad laws immediatly. We need more folks with the knowledge to do so.

you play god with a mans life on a jury, you better judge the law too. you better be up on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and subject the law to the same scrutiny you give the evidence presented at trial. any less is immoral, and ignoring your duty as a citizen on a jury.

[xone]

“Mal legis, non lex.” Cato.

[dhm914]

not up on latin, will you translate??
thanks

[xone]

Bad law is not law.

[TChris]

four times now, give it up

Four times now you've refused to answer my question. You gave up before you started!

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.

Wow! Such a beautiful example of hypocrisy, in such a small space.

You go by the Constitution, huh? Would you kindly point out where the Constitution gives a juror the power to ignore the law, ignore his sacred oath to uphold that law, and decide all by himself that the law which was created by the authority granted by that Constitution is "bad"?

SHOW ME THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

You don't follow the constitution, you throw it out the window when you don't like the law.

That attitude is NO different from Justice Douglas who found "emanations" from "penumbras" to justify HIS feeling that anti-abortion laws were "bad".

I mean, hey, if the law is bad, it's fine to ignore it, right?

[dhm914]

i will show you the constitution, just look it up on the computer. I will only up[hold Constitutionlal laws. some laws are not constitutional. I have already pointed some out to you.

now on to the bill of Rights and constitution. we have laws that are bad, that break the constitition and bill of rights (some already named by me) them is bad laws, and I will not convict for them ever.

now lets turn it back on you. where in teh bill or rights or constitution is it stated that you must follow the law, even if the law is bad????? even if the law breaks the constitution and Billof rights????

I am talking the power of the people to stop prosectutions of bad laws, I am not talking about justices as you cite, that make up bad laws.

it is your sacred duty to ignore bad laws. but adfter four times stating it, you appear to be hell bent on convicting anyone for any crime no matter how illegal that law is.

I hope someone gets you on hate crinme laws (un-constitutional law) and you get 12 jurors that think like you do, that all laws are good, and should be enforced. rot in jail sucker!!!

for a final say on the constitution, read up on inalienable rights. then you decide what to do when the laws, violate them rights. you will if you honest, understand that some laws are illegtal, some laws are bad, and a moral person must not convict. Read the Bill of Rights, and make sure the law does not break them Rights we have. Rights the government has no right to take away.

what part of inalienable do you not understand???

[CFW]

Interesting debate you guys have going here ...

I'd just like to add ....
Our founders knew that our form of government was only good as long as the people were moral and mindfull.

Jury nullification is the last line of defense against an out of control government ... but it's also the means to destroy the republic.

The key is the hand that welds the sword.

And so it is , and so it should be, we get what we as a people allow and accept.

Fight the good fight , the dawn will come.

[TChris]

it is your sacred duty to ignore bad laws.

Sacred, according to whom? Who has said this, other than you?

And, once again, who gets to define "bad laws"? You keep throwing that term around as though it's settled and everyone agrees. You get angry; you get indignant. But you never explain how one, or twelve, can objectively define "bad law".

Even with the Constitution as a guide, honest, conservative people here on Free Republic disagree all the time over precise meanings and legal boundary lines. Extreme cases might be relatively easy for YOU to see the badness of the law, but many cases aren't so easy.

So, here are my problems with jury nullification in summary:

• As a juror, I swear a solemn oath to apply the law as written and explained in court.
• The Constitution prescribes the manner in which law is created or altered in this country; jury nullification is not part of that process. Any power not granted by the Constitution is denied. (Remember, a juror is part of the court.)
• The Constitution guarantees that all shall have "equal protection" under the law, meaning that it must be applied evenly and consistently in all cases.
• As a juror, I become a temporary part of the government. I AM "due process", and am an active part of the application of the law to another person. If I nullify the law, I violate the oath I took, I bypass the process by which the law was created, essentially creating or destroying law without a vote of the people, and I NECESSARILY apply the law in an uneven fashion, violating the Constitution's prohibition against such.

[dhm914]

it is up to the jurors. I can define bad laws as thoose that are aginst teh bill of rights for starters. I have already stated a partial list which laws are bad (ie gun control, hate crimes, anti-prolife free speech laws.) so i wouyld never convict in thoose cases, I think they are Un-Constitutional.

can you find one law that is unconstitutional as you read the constitution? please to prove you are a conservative, goive me one bad law??? If you cannot find even one bad law, you are no conservative, and need a total brain transplant. there are bad laws all around. there is no law book that lists the bad laws. i can not produce that for you, that is something you have made up in your mind, so stop crying for me to produce it. I have named three bad alws I would not convict for.

now will you please tell me if you agree or disagree with any fo these three bad laws??

are you in favor of gun control laws? are you in favor of hate crime laws, and are you in faovor of free speech restrictions aginst pro-lifers? three simple law questions for you to decide if they are right or not.
if you agree with all the laws, them this is not a worry for you. if you are a thinker, you will find that many laws violate many protections we have in the bill of rights and constitution. I hold these docutments way above the other laws, all other laws MUST conform to these documants. if they dont, they are bad laws, and I as a juror must decide that. Not a law book, not a judge, but me and 11 other folks have to decide that.

[TChris]

it is up to the jurors.

OK. Where does the Constitution grant jurors the power to declare a law "bad" and change or ignore it for a trial?

I can define bad laws as thoose that are aginst teh bill of rights for starters. I have already stated a partial list which laws are bad (ie gun control, hate crimes, anti-prolife free speech laws.) so i wouyld never convict in thoose cases, I think they are Un-Constitutional.

Ironic that this should be your reason, isn't it? ...to violate the Constitution because you think the law is unconstitutional.

can you find one law that is unconstitutional as you read the constitution? please to prove you are a conservative, goive me one bad law???

There are plenty that I believe are unconstitutional; the list would be long. What you have written would probably be on my list as well.

But the huge gulf between us is what I believe should be done about it. I believe unconstitutional laws should be identified as such either by the legislature or an appellate court and eliminated or changed according to the processes authorized by the Constitution.

I would NOT take a sacred oath I intended to violate to sit on a jury and ignore or alter the law. I would either declare my aversion to the law during the jury selection process, or if I learned of the magnitude of the mess during the trial, I would attempt to have myself removed from the jury.

There's a right way to fix a problem and your way is not it, in my opinion.