[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK. South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel Today I turned 50! San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport! Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next' Will it ever end? Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar? Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL Source: From The Trenches URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165 Published: Jun 2, 2017 Author: Justin Gardner Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 122337 Comments: 422 Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.” Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74. #2. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited) Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   12:57:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: misterwhite (#2) Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   14:45:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan, misterwhite (#5) (Edited) Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're right. I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal. Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   14:54:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, misterwhite (#7) I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal. Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic. The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. That possibility proceeds in the face of double jeopardy claims on the theory that jeopardy never attached in the trial with the rigged jury. A judge issuing an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict I believe is most commonly issued when the judge decides he erred in sending the case to the jury as there was insufficient evidence presented to justify a finding of guilty. If a juror should be found, during a trial (before a verdict) to be engaging in juror nullification (or intending to do so), said juror may be removed from the jury. Defense counsel may not argue jury nullification. Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edition, West Publishing, Thomson Reuters (2009), by Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, and Orin S. Karr [footnotes omitted] [1075] (f) Jury Nullification. The function of the jury is commonly said to be that of ascertain­ing the facts and then applying the law, as stated by the judge, to those facts. Indeed, it is not at all unusual for a jury in a criminal case to be instructed that it has the “duty” to proceed in such a fashion. But it is nonetheless true that, a jury in a criminal case has the power to acquit even when its findings of fact, if literally applied to the law as stated by the judge, would have resulted in a conviction. This is because a jury verdict of not guilty is not subject to reversal or to review in any manner whatsoever. On occasion, juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise. Some have argued that this practice, usually referred to as jury nullification, is part of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Arguably the language that the Supreme Court has used to describe that right appears to encompass the nullification process. In Duncan v. Louisiana; holding that right applicable to the states, the Court declared that in the view of the framers “[i]f the defen­dant preferred the commonsense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it.” Similarly, in emphasizing the need for juries drawn from a cross-section of the community the Court later asserted: “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exer­cise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the profession­al or perhaps overconditioned or biased re­sponse of a judge." Rather than treating nullification as an af­firmative right of the accused (or the juror), however, most courts treat the jury’s nullifica­tion power as an inevitable by-product of the finality of verdicts of acquittal. As a result, pre-verdict procedures discouraging nullifica­tion abound. Members of the venire who admit that they will not follow the law may be ex­cused for cause, for example. And in United States v. Thomas, the Second Circuit conclud­ed that a juror’s intent to acquit regardless of the evidence constitutes a basis for the juror’s removal during the deliberations, reasoning, “Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court * * * We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.” The prevailing view is also that the Consti­tution does not require that a jury be told [1076] specifically that it has the power to disregard the law and acquit. This view is often attrib­uted to Sparf and Hansen v. United States."Two sailors charged with murder asked the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the judge refused on the ground that there was no evidence which would support a manslaughter verdict. Rather, he instructed: “In a proper case, a verdict for manslaughter may be rendered, * * * and even in this case you have the physical power to do so; but as one of the tribunals of the country, a jury is expected to be governed by law, and the lawr it should receive from the court.” Holding the jury had not been improp­erly instructed, the Supreme Court reasoned that “if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matters of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.” It is fair to say that Sparf did not settle the jury nullification issue, for the Court did not address the specific question whether jurors should be told they can refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when they conclude that jus­tice so requires. But lower courts have rather consistently ruled that no such instruction should be given, that defense counsel may not make a nullification closing argument, and that “the potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.” When jurors have no responsibility for sen­tencing, for example, a court will typically prohibit them from learning of the sentencing consequences of their verdict through evidence or argument. This ensures that their decision to convict or acquit is based entirely on the evidence of guilt or innocence and not upon their punishment preferences for the defen­dant. One leading case on the propriety of limiting the information and argument provided to the jury on its power to disregard the law is Unit­ed States v. Dougherty." There the court con­cluded that the “jury system has worked reasonably well overall” without resort to a nullification instruction, “with the jury acting as a ‘safety valve’ for exceptional cases, out being a wildcat or runaway institutution. This is because, the court explained, the jury “gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system” not only from judge’s instructions but also through “the formal communication from the total culture," and the “totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” The court expressed fear that a nullification instruction would upset the existing balance and produce more hung juries. Finally, the court in Dougherty declared that such an instruction would deprive the individual juror of an important protection he now enjoys and to which he is entitled: that “when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.” In opposition to the Dougherty position, it has been contended that there is no reason to assume that juries will act in a different and less desirable way if informed about their nullification power, that there are political advantages to be gained by not lying to the jury, and that a nullification instruction would serve to discourage acquittals based on prejudice instead of encouraging them, by setting justice and conscience as the standards for acquittal rather than leaving the jurors to use their own biases as standards. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-03   23:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: nolu chan (#27) The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. Hmmm...it almost sounds contradictory. I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant. It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   1:04:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Tooconservative (#29) (Edited) It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is. Watch this movie. It's an excellent example of how the jury is manipulated by the prosecution and the lawyers involved. It's one of my favorites and explains how the real world works in our courtrooms. And from personal experience I have known of court clerks colluding with opposing counsel teams to have perfectly legitimate cases thrown out by tampering with witnesses and evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-04   20:10:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: goldilucky (#72) Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead. Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   20:25:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: Tooconservative (#73) (Edited) Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead. No it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers. Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies. Then I suggest a reader for you to get keen insight on how courts, judges and lawyers prepare you for the trial process to grooming your client. It's entitled, The First Trial by Steven H. Goldberg goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-04   20:39:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 74. #78. To: goldilucky, Tooconservative, *Bang List* (#74) (Edited) it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers. Yeah, but I still hate the movie for it's libtard gun grabber theme, and the dopey notion that it's the manufactures fault if you get harmed by their product. Sue the spoon manufacturer for making Michael Moore a fat slob! /s www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XO2b-45Wnw Hondo68  posted on  2017-06-04 23:27:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 74. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com