[white trash redneck]

Who was it who said that "voir dire" is French for "jury tampering?"

[fporretto]

As usual, Suprynowicz hits the jugular.

Sadly, we may soon see the end of trial by jury in criminal cases in this country. Judges are finding an increasing percentage of juries less than tractable, even though they're top-heavy with retirees and government employees. Major legal figures are now arguing for judges to decree guilt or innocence, and to use civilian juries strictly in an advisory role.

I suppose that would put an end to those nasty jurors voting their consciences against the will of the sovereign judge, wouldn't it?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[mykej]

"Whereupon the third juror, should this nonsense continue, could add the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, giving his charge to the jury in the treason trial of John Freis (9 F. Cas. at 930): "It is the duty of the court in this case, and in all criminal cases, to state to the jury their opinion of the law arising on the facts; but the jury are to decide on the present, and in all criminal cases, both the law and the facts, on their consideration of the whole case.""

Is this the Samuel Chase who was impeached in part because of his conduct of this trial? Doesn't sound like a very good argument to give a judge.

While Chase did beat the impeachment rap, even his defenders usually admit Fries didn't recieve a fair trial.

[mykej]

"So, after wasting a full day of the court's time, and that of the prospective jurors, and of the attorneys (who I expect will not refund their fees)"

Why would they refund their fees when the court screwed up? this guy sounded liek a libertarian up until this point. That just makes him sound like an anti-capitalist moron.

[Tall_Texan]

Where again, I'm sure, Judge McGroarty inappropriately demanded that each prospective juror do what he himself would never consent to do (commit himself in advance to how he will judge the law or its application in a specific case), asking: "And will you promise to obey any instructions in the law I may give you, even should you disagree with one or more of them?"

I think he's overstating the intent of the judge's question. What I think the judge is asking is "If I instruct you to disregard this witnesses' testimony, or instruct you not to discuss the case outside this courtroom or instruct you not to read or watch any news coverage of this case, will you be able to follow my instructions?"

Judges believe that most of their decisions are based on the laws handed down by USOC or their state Supreme Court or an appeals court. IOW, that is "the law". When the judge makes these instructions, it is to insure a fair trial instead of a mistrial or a case overturned on appeal.

I don't think the judge was asking them to rip up their legal rights and blindly follow the judge's every belief.

Besides, if one is asked to sit on a jury, it is to determine whether the facts of the case match the law, not to decide if the law itself is fair or correct. I can believe prostitution should be legal but, while it is illegal, decide that a prostitute broke the law engaging in prostitution.

I may disagree with some gun laws but, if someone is held in violation of that law, I can still agree that the defendant violated the law, which is generally what the jury is being asked to decide.

If the author wants to *change* the laws, he should run for office.

[aruanan]

Where again, I'm sure, Judge McGroarty inappropriately demanded that each prospective juror do what he himself would never consent to do (commit himself in advance to how he will judge the law or its application in a specific case), asking: "And will you promise to obey any instructions in the law I may give you, even should you disagree with one or more of them?"

So have you sent a copy of this to Judge McGroarty and the local newspapers for everyone's edification?

[Sgt_Schultze]

bump