Posted on 04/30/2009 9:54:52 AM PDT by DFG
There are probably better ways to avoid jury duty than the approach recently taken by a Montana man. After Erik Slye, 36, received a jury notice earlier this year, he filed a notarized affidavit seeking to be excused from serving on a District Court panel in Gallatin County. Slye's caustic affidavit, which he prepared with help from his wife Jennifer, can be found below.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesmokinggun.com ...
Where did I say that?
Dang it... ;-)
On most mornings I watch the call-in program on C-Span and I shake my head that some of those callers vote and serve on juries. I trust you feel exceptionally comfortable having such people interpreting the constitution and highly complex statutes. I find it amusing that the same people who howl about judges making laws and are so comfortable with jury nullification.
WR ping
Oh I don't know. If you do then obviously some one has to serve on juries. People who serve don't have to like it they do it because they realize some one has to. I would not say I'm proud to pay my taxes I try to avoid all that I legally can but I do pay them. I don't go out of my way to get on a jury but if I do I serve. Some one has to do both these things.
You must be a lot of fun to go out counting dog's balls wrinkles with.
I am among those who would NEVER convict somebody of violating an unConstitutional law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
The system we have is certainly broken and has been for quite some time. But it will not be made better by having jurors willing to follow Congress, the President, or the trial court judge instead of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You didn't answer my question: Would you vote to convict someone of violating an unConsitutional law?
Folks, as conservatives we need to perform our jury duty.
What if the accused concerns a second amendment issue?
What if the subject is an effort to take a persons home to give it to a developer?
What if the case is about an acorn worker registering fake voters?
Jury duty is where the law and the citizenship of “we the people” reach nexus.
The final decision is not left to lawyers or judges. It is left to the citizens. The only way around that is for the parties to select to settle or select a judge trial.
I am simplifying.
However, jury duty is just as valuable as voting. (well voting outside of chicago)
What the man wrote was no cruder than what you hear on prime time commercial TV every night.
Forget it!
John Jay
The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay , 1st Chief Justice USSC 1789 “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” . Samuel Chase, USSC, 1796 “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, USSC 1902 “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, USSC 1941 “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of it’s prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge.” . US v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)
Thomas Jefferson
“It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.”
You do realize we have to pay that!
not true.
I have picked and been on juries. Each case is different.
You just never know what the lawyers are looking for OR if their “freebie” challenges will be used up before they get to you. The prosecutor may want a white male (despite race not being allowed) and the defense attorney may have used up their preemptions.
In a civil case, one lawyer may want someone who owned his own business or somebody who would be sympathetic to a charge of reverse racism.
Ummmmmmm. You sure sound like one. It may have been crude, but I don't think most people are going to want to be hauled down to court, so I dont think this kind of thing will become a trend, if thats what youre worrying about.
Should I ever be in need of a jury, I would prefer that it not be composed of libtards.
Accordingly I do nothing, when summoned, to dissuade lawyers from seating me on the panel.
I've been summoned twice and served twice. I'd gladly do it again.
I’ve been called at least 6x in life - always served...never seated. The attorneys typically prefer the less educated and experienced.
1) I agree with you that juries are grotesquely underpaid.
2) When I had a severe schedule conflict with a jury summons, I had no trouble at all getting it delayed; the bureaucrat was quite cooperative in finding an alternative date that fit my schedule. I’ll note that I was polite and prompt in addressing the matter. Common decency goes a long way in preventing pointless conflict.
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.