Posted on 10/28/2006 1:26:56 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
"Return to the Court With a Verdict of Guilty": That's what a Canadian judge told the jury in a marijuana possession case, where the defendant claimed he possessed the marijuana for medical reasons (though he apparently didn't qualify for some reason for Canada's medical marijuana exemption): The judge instructed the jurors "to retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the conviction (R. v. Krieger), concluding -- as do American courts -- that the right to criminal jury trial means that the judge may not categorically direct the jury to render a guilty verdict, even if the judge believes that the factual evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.
"Let me say at once that this is not a case of a “slip of the tongue”, to be evaluated in the context of the judge’s charge as a whole. Nor is it a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations. The judge’s purpose was as clear as the words he used to achieve it. He evidently considered it his duty to order the jury to convict and to make it plain to the jurors that they were not free to reach any other conclusion. In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court."Much like the judiciary in New Jersey has ordered the legislature to return with a law permitting gay marriage, allowing them nothing more than the ceremonial function of determining whether or not it will be called "marriage".
Isn't the defense attorney an officer of the court, as is the judge?
Isn't the defense attorney an officer of the court, as is the judge?
Juror: Here in the — in our — in our group, we — there are only two choices to — yes or no, or to be guilty or not guilty. So . . ..Judge: Actually there is one choice and that is guilt.
It's certainly got me upset. That's why I keep bringing it up. The legislature should do nothing and let the 180 days expire just to see what the court will do.
Since all the judges in New Jersey are "bought" doing such things would anger the Mob and expose you to severe consequences.
But. like you say, they are idiots, and will simply say "Yes sir, yes sir, how high sir?"
Yes, a defense attorney IS an officer, but his office is NOT to give orders and he cannot enforce orders. His office is to plead, to advocate, to present a case -- or one side of a case -- in as persuasive a manner as his skills and the law allow.
A judge on the other hand umpires the pleading according to the rules of evidence and that sort of thing, and advises the jury -- often the very advice he gives is scrutinized by both sides before it is given, and the sides may make suggestions for the instructions he gives the jury. But those instruction are on the law and they are given in "one the one hand, on the other hand" fashion.
For example, "If you find that the defendant did intend to make Mr. Paulsen fear for his life or safety, then you may find him guilty of assault. If, on the other hand you find that the defendant had no intention of causing any fear or apprehension in Mr. Paulsen, but drove at him in his SUV and ninety-eleven miles per hour in a narrow alley with high buildings on either side COMPLETELY inadvertently, then you may find him guilty of negligence, but not of assault." An advocate, who is not supposed to be impartial could say, "It cannot be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has ever been inside an SUV, so you cannot find him guilty." But the advocate for the other side can then say, "the evidence we have presented, the video, the fingerprints, the signed confession, all indicate that the defendant ..." well you get the point ...
What enforceable order did the judge give?
None. It's not strictly relevant to the distinction I'm making. He gave an instruction. At least I'm assuming the remark in question was given during the instructions.
If I were a juror, I would listen intently to what the judge said about, in my fatuous example, finding assualt or negligence. Especially when you consider that juries are selected for stupidity, I can see a juror thinking, "Well if the judge says I have to find him guilty, I guess I have to find him guilty." In Virginia jury nullification is against the law.. Consequently if I ever was on a jury and wanted to nullify, I sure as hell wouldn't let ANYONE know what I was doing.
My point about giving orders and such was just to argue that different officers of the court have different authority, and get paid different kinds of respect and can command different levels of obedience. Id suggest that juries expect advocates to make a case, while they expect judges to tell them what's what.
Are you suggesting there is nothing wrong with a judge saying that the jury has to find somebody guilty?
And? Is that permissible under Canadian law?
Since the Supreme Court of Canada simply ordered a retrial (instead of the typical 9th Circus/lieberal Lawgivers-In-Black complete vacation and no retrial), I can't really fault them. I can still fault them because the perp was as guilty as can be.
That's for the jury to decide, not the judge though. And the judge was wrong for telling them that was the only verdict they could come to.
It could be because we have the "no double jeopardy" rule from the Fifth Amendment that Canada doesn't have.
From the decision:
I begin by recalling the terms used by the judge in instructing the jury as to the available verdicts. As I have already mentioned, he directed the jurors “to retire to the jury room ... and ... to return to the court with a verdict of guilty”. To the judge himself this direction left no other course open to the jury. When two jurors later asked to be excused, the judge stated, in the jury’s presence:I have a matter that the jury raises. It is apparent that some of the members either didn’t understand my direction this morning, that is that they were to return a verdict of guilty . . . or they refused to do so.And then, lest the jury be left in doubt as to the binding effect of his direction, the judge added:And once they [the jurors] are directed to do that [to return a verdict of guilty], it’s up to them to bring in — to abide by the direction.
Not even you could be this stupid.
Check that...you can.
Fully Informed Jury Association.
L
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.