Posted on 03/25/2005 9:34:29 AM PST by steampower
I just searched here at Free Republic for articles under the keywords "jury trial" and I found only one listed.
It is the story of a crime, for which an offer of a plea bargain was made, that if accepted, would have carried a penalty of two days in jail. The accused insisted upon a jury trial and was acquitted.
Terri Schiavo, on the other hand, didn't have a trial by jury. Her fate rested in the hands of one man. What was at stake was not a brief jail sentence but her very life.
Our right to a trial by a jury of our peers is our most valuable weapon in our struggle to preserve our rights, and prevent them from being trampled by the government.
The jury in Scott Peterson's trial asked for, and got, a look at the boat which he used. Judge Greer refused to actually visit Terri.
Robert Blake's jury found him not guilty, and the prosecutor called them "idiots".
We must not allow the judges in this country, be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans, or even if they are elected, to continue to make decisions which order, or allow, death without a trial by jury.
A jury has the right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the law.
If you value your rights, your life, your liberty, and wish to continue to pursue happiness, then you have but one path to follow today:
You must henceforth dedicate yourself to achieving the goal of ensuring that no one is deprived of their life, for any reason, by a court in The United States, without a trial by a jury of their peers.
You might find this to be of interest. It is the website for the fully informed jury assoc. Lots of great info.
http://www.fija.org/
Nearly all states, and the federal government (TX being the notable exception) only allow jury trials in matters of law, not matters of equity. This would be a trial on a matter of equity and thus, in all reasonable likelihood, is not allowed by the FL rules of civil proceedure.
So no one get their hopes up here.
Well, you're right. Terri wasn't indicted for anything, so a trial by jury was never called for. Silly post.
Are you a lawyer? Is this something that could be changed by changing the statute law, or would it be a change to state constitutions? I think the point is valid-- no one person should decide on the life or death of another.
Actually, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley called the jurors "incredibly stupid" because they expected the kind of evidence they see turn up on TV shows like CSI. He's right.
Will be in a few months.
What would have to happen is the FL Supreme Court would have to change the rules of civil procedure in the state...and the would never do this.
What this basically means is that, say, in TX, you can have a jury decide whether or not to grant an injunction...I don't think any other state is like this (for obvious reasons...it cloggs the courts).
A "De novo" trial would result in EXACTLY the same decision because each side would get two neurologists and the judge would appoint a "tie-breaker." Now, where in the world does ANYONE think ANY of the judges who have already ruled would suddenly seek out a (for want of a better term) "pro-Terri" neuruologist? In fact, the judge (any of them) would select a neurologist who would validate all the previous findings.
That is the point. In the case I referred to a man was accused of picking flowers and biting a cop. He was entitled to a trial by jury and they acquited him.
Why should matters of an alleged crime, be they ever so insignificant, attain to the level of a jury trial, while a matter of life or death is left in the hands of lone judge?
We need to lobby Congress to reform our laws in this regard.
Thank you. I am a member.
It is not our hopes that we need to get up.
We need to rise up in righteous indignation and demand that the laws be changed.
That's great. I think all Americans should be fully trained in the duties and responsibilities of a juror. I think things would be very different if more people knew the true power of a juror.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm a citizen who sees their most basic right, the right to life, being destroyed.
If this takes a Constitutional Amendment it is truly our only hope.
Since this entire sordid episode is completely the workings of the State, including the courts, perhaps the solution lies in further involvement of the State--juries. Since there is nothing outside the State anymore, this shouldn't be a problem.
No, the jury is right. And I'll bet you weren't on it.
Of course he'll find fault with their verdict, he wasn't exactly an impartial bystander was he.
You obviously appreciate the power of the jury. Please help me to spread the word. The Judiciary isn't voluntarily going to give up the power that they have grabbed, it will have to be pried from their hands.
You must have used Windex on your crystal ball. Must don't seem to care about their clouded view.
I just wish people would go back and look at the 1895 (i think) supreme court ruling that stated that jurors need not be told of their rights. People should ask themselves why.
That ruling effectively concealed the peoples power over the courts. That power still exists but no one knows about it. There isn't a judge or a lawyer in the world who's willing to lose thier grip on power that they really don't hold.
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.