Posted on 03/16/2024 9:54:06 AM PDT by Auslander154
I am just asking.
How hard Is it to move a U.S. District Court from one location to another?
It seems to me that at certain Federal District Courts democrats usually get a jury of their peers but republicans almost usually do not. A conservative president can appoint as many conservative judges as he is able, but if the jury pool is decidedly one-party then justice is never served.
As long as these courts are centered in major cities that are about as blue as they can get, justice will always be weighed for one side over another simply for the fact that it is difficult for conservatives to get a jury of their peers in those metropolitan cities.
Doesn't seem fair that just about any democrat is going to be exonerated in a location where over 90% of the voters are of that party. Democrats have little to fear when their case is brought to sympathetic politicized juries. They know it, and they feel safe in realizing that their malfeasance is basically protected by law. Republicans almost always have to appeal to a higher court.
For example, how difficult would it be to either abolish the District of Columbia Circuit or relocate it? That goes for the 9th district court as well. This has become a serious problem for Lady Justice.
I can't believe that the Supreme Court is not aware of this "jury of their peers" injustice. Not only do government agencies need to be moved all over the country outside of megalopolises, but, even more so, do Federal District Courts.
Special Counsel Robert Hur described President Joe the Frontman as a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly Democrat man with a poor memory..."
“I can’t believe that the Supreme Court is not aware of this “jury of their peers” injustice.”
They are, and from what I understand have even ruled to allow prosecution without a “true” jury of our peers.
So how do they select the jury? Remember the Zimmerman case? No man was selected for the jury. Black men or white men were biased. So the jury was all women. It made sense to me.
I’ve been saying the same. We had a similar problem in Texas where the D.A. of Travis County (Austin) had a “Public Integrity” branch that looked at state-level wrongdoing. All fine until one considers who the elects the D.A., the Judges, and who are in the jury pool.
So the Texas legislature finally dealt with that problem.
Juries in Federal courts are selected from the entire District. If you live in Washington DC, that’s not much help.
Most of DC should be returned to Maryland. DC has more than judicial problems.
The trials of all natural persons in what is now DC should be transferred to a Maryland federal district.
“moved all over the country outside of megalopolises, but, even more so, do Federal District Courts”
Most of the parties are from those megalopolises.
Perhaps the districts should be redesigned to be ‘diverse’.
The Republican House could have fought to change the law so Peter Navarro could have paid a modest fine instead of spending four months locked up.
You could get jurors from DC’s rural swaths, the farm belt.
Here’s an idea.
Allow a defendant in a federal trial to remove his criminal to the District in which he resides.
So a bank robber from Chicago who robs a bank in Mississippi is going to make the witnesses, prosecutors, etc go to Chicago?
Prior to the 6th Amendment the fear expressed by Anti-federalists was that someone in GA could be charged in a distant federal court, say in NY.
Without the 6A, there was nothing to prevent near-repetition of a charge in our Declaration of Independence: “For transporting us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offenses.”
My experience is that a District Court has several offices.
The District Court for Western Pennsylvania has offices in Pittsburgh and Erie (maybe other places too?), but the cities proper are both Democrat.
I doubt they have a court in, say, McCandless Township.
I am uncertain about jury selection.
I would think that the court would consider jurors from outside the city, but I don’t know.
You make an extremely good point.
I was thinking about people who happen to be traveling to D.C.
Then it is unfixable if the Supreme Court is not concerned with ‘a jury of our peers.”
I can see the day coming when the juries will consist of A.I bots.
6 Google bots and 6 Musk bots.
Then no one will ever be convicted. All hung juries.
At least our guys would stand a better chance than how it is now.
I feel so bad for Peter Navarro for taking a righteous and principled stand.
What if the defendant can choose where he wants to be tried or at least from his home state ?
The feds can pay for transportation costs of its witnesses.
Should also be easier to charge prosecutors for withholding testimony and other “odors of malfeasance.”
Thanks to all for your input on this matter.
Our justice system here is completely broken. Officers, prosecutors and judges have way too much legal opportunity to railroad the accused. The term “justice” is now a misnomer. We are presumed guilty and have to prove our innocence. It is polar opposite of what is supposed to be.
People accused of breaking federal law in DC should have the option to choose trial in their state of residence.
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.