Posted on 04/20/2020 8:25:21 AM PDT by jazusamo
Good point.
By all means, you just keep going as you are... It's not my job to destroy your illusions.
So what did you mean by saying, "10-2 verdict, the defendant wins. He walks, and he either stays honest, or kills some else. DemSoc states have no problem with giving criminals another chance to offend."?
Thanks for posting. Very helpful. And now I’m glad the decision turned out the way it did.
I believe there should be no “common law” (ie evolving body of law based on precedent) for the Constitution. The real common law can evolve as it has for a thousand years, and if one court goes wrong others can steer it right again. And if they all go wrong the legislature can overrule it all with a statute (cf. The Statute of Frauds).
With Constitutional law there is only one court, and that court presumes to be superior to the legislature.
Thus I think whenever a constitutional case presents itself, the court should review the Constitutional issues de novo, starting with reading the text fresh and looking only to contemporaneous accounts (and history at tht time) if it’s necessary to figure out what it means.
I think the UCMJ may be bound by this decision on the other cases.
Unfortunately there’s far too much jury nullification as it is...and this will only make it worse.
Your average DA is not going to become governor without a 95% conviction rate. It's why they don't like juries. Too much of a gamble.
If a DA consents to a jury trial, that are expensive and time consuming, he is 110% sure he can convince 12 goofs who can't duck out of the duty that the accused is guilty.
I simply explain that, having bought two Chicago cops, an alderman and a traffic court judge, I'm probably not good jury material. So far, nobody wants me on a jury.
GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which GINSBURG and BREYER , JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.
Alito, Roberts, and Kagan join in a dissent?
Gonna take me a while to read this one. It's 87 pages.
Thank you, the first paragraph on page 1 explains in plain words what this case is about.
Exactly - it's a protection for innocent defendants, and goes hand in hand with the presumption of innocence as a centuries-old cornerstone of American criminal procedure.
I think the UCMJ may be bound by this decision on the other cases.
No, courts-martial are Article I courts as creatures of the Executive Branch and play by separate rules.
"The Sixth Amendment promises that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” The Amendment goes on to preserve other rights for criminal defendants but says nothing else about what a “trial by an impartial jury” entails.
"Still, the promise of a jury trial surely meant something— otherwise, there would have been no reason to write it down. Nor would it have made any sense to spell out the places from which jurors should be drawn if their powers as jurors could be freely abridged by statute. Imagine a constitution that allowed a “jury trial” to mean nothing but a single person rubberstamping convictions without hearing any evidence—but simultaneously insisting that the lone juror come from a specific judicial district “previously ascertained by law.” And if that’s not enough, imagine a constitution that included the same hollow guarantee twice—not only in the Sixth Amendment, but also in Article III.8 No: The text and structure of the Constitution clearly suggest that the term “trial by an impartial jury” carried with it some meaning about the content and requirements of a jury trial.
"One of these requirements was unanimity. Wherever we might look to determine what the term “trial by an impartial jury trial” meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable. A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict. "
There were actually a few 5-4 rulings last term with the split not be the traditional conservative / liberal justice split.
Very simply put, and entirely correct.
That is the real issue facing us-- brought to you by public education.
“10-2 verdict, the defendant wins.”
Probably not. The judge declares a mistrial and it is up to the prosecution whether it wants to proceed to another trial or not. With a 10 - 2 jury they are probably going to want another trial.
The same for a 2 - 10 jury. Defendant is not found not guilty, it is a mistrial. Prosecution in that case would probably not opt for another trial, but with power mad DAs hating to lose a case you never know.
Our new conservatives proved to be not so conservative once again.
Very convincing!
Don’t have time to read every article. If it was in force when the Constitution was written, then it should have always been in force.
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.