Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column ... -case-is-merely-a-distraction/
Published: Jul 20, 2013
Author: Jaz McKay
Post Date: 2013-07-20 23:58:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 58880
Comments: 95
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 72.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
"Gov. Rick Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, state attorney for the Jacksonville area, as special prosecutor to head the state investigation of the Feb. 26 slaying of Trayvon Martin, 17, of South Florida." Tampa Bay Times, March 22, 2012. Republican Governor Rick Scott appointed Republican Angela Corry as Special Prosecutor. As a Republican, Corry was elected to the office of State Attorney for the 4th Judicial Circuit.
statelymcdanielmanor.word...7/19/who-is-angela-corey/ Who is Angela Corey and how did she get picked to prosecute George Zimmerman? The best information suggests that Corey was reliable, as in reliably overly-aggressive and unethical. Interestingly enough, Corey ran for her office as a republican and was appointed by republican governor Rick Scott and republican State Attorney General Pam Bondi. One might think that republicans would be less prone to the corruption that became so evident in the prosecution of George Zimmerman–and the continuing prosecution of Shellie Zimmerman–than Democrats. Unfortunately, it appears that Governor Scott and AG Bondi went wobbly on principle and the law in the onslaught of a DOJ sponsored racial firestorm. They needed George Zimmerman to be prosecuted and convicted regardless of the evidence, and Angela Corey–and her handpicked minions–were more than willing to ignore an almost complete lack of evidence in the pursuit of those needs. Ian Tuttle at National Review.com provides insight into Corey’s background and performance. The primary lesson? She’s vindictive and ruthless. Corey, a Jacksonville native, took a degree in marketing from Florida State University before pursuing her J.D. at the University of Florida. She became a Florida prosecutor in 1981 and tried everything from homicides to juvenile cases in the ensuing 26 years. In 2008, Corey was elected state attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, taking over from Harry Shorstein — the five-term state attorney who had fired her from his office a year earlier, citing “long-term issues” regarding her supervisory performance. When Corey came in, she cleaned house. Corey fired half of the office’s investigators, two-fifths of its victim advocates, a quarter of its 35 paralegals, and 48 other support staff — more than one-fifth of the office. Then she sent a letter to Florida’s senators demanding that they oppose Shorstein’s pending nomination as a U.S. attorney. ‘I told them he should not hold a position of authority in his community again, because of his penchant for using the grand jury for personal vendettas,’ she wrote. I’ve written about her bizarre attempt to get Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired for the crime of daring to criticize her terribly unprofessional and arguably illegal affidavit in the Zimmerman case. This was only one incident in a long line of unethical and thin-skinned attacks on anyone daring to criticize her official actions. Corey knows about personal vendettas. They seem to be her specialty. When Ron Littlepage, a journalist for the Florida Times-Union, wrote a column criticizing her handling of the Christian Fernandez case — in which Corey chose to prosecute a twelve-year-old boy for first-degree murder, who wound up locked in solitary confinement in an adult jail prior to his court date — she ‘fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state-attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.’ And that was moderate. When Corey was appointed to handle the Zimmerman case, Talbot ‘Sandy’ D’Alemberte, a former president of both the American Bar Association and Florida State University, criticized the decision: ‘I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.’ Corey responded by making a public-records request of the university for all e-mails, text messages, and phone messages in which D’Alemberte had mentioned Fernandez. Like Littlepage, D’Alemberte had earlier criticized Corey’s handling of the Fernandez case. Not many people are willing to cross Corey. A Florida attorney I spoke with declined to go on record because of ‘concerns about retaliation’ — that attorney has pending cases that will require Corey’s cooperation. The attorney mentioned colleagues who have refused to speak to the media for the same reason. And to think: D’Alemberte crossed Corey twice. He should get a medal. Among the things Dershowitz learned in the aftermath of Corey’s attempt to have him fired was that Corey is infamous in Florida for concealing evidence and overcharging. There is no question she grossly overcharged in the Zimmerman case, in fact, there was virtually no evidence to support any charge, as the jury understood. And I’ve catalogued serial abuses of discovery, including one brought to light by former Corey IT director Ben Kruidbos. In Update 31, I noted Bernie di la Rionda taking Kruidbos to task for not feeling comfortable having a heart to heart chat with Angela Corey about his fears that di la Rionda was illegally withholding evidence from the defense. Kruidbos had more than solid grounds for not trusting Corey–or di la Rionda, for that matter–Corey fired him shortly after the case was given to the jury. Tuttle writes: Meanwhile, those who speak out against her continue to be mistreated. Ben Kruidbos (pronounced CRIED-boss), the IT director at Corey’s state-attorney office, was fired last week — one month after testifying during the Zimmerman trial that Corey had withheld from defense attorneys evidence obtained from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. Corey’s office contends that Kruidbos was fired for poor job performance and for leaking personnel records. The termination notice delivered to Kruidbos last Friday read: ‘You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” Less than two months before this letter, Kruidbos had received a raise for “meritorious performance.’ The records in question — Kruidbos maintains he had nothing to do with leaking them — revealed that Corey used $235,000 in taxpayer money to upgrade her pension and that of her co-prosecutor in the Zimmerman case, Bernie de la Rionda. The upgrade was legal, but Harry Shorstein, Corey’s predecessor, had said previously that using taxpayer funds to upgrade pensions was not ‘proper.’ Meanwhile, while Kruidbos has been forced out of the state attorney’s office, the managing director who wrote his termination letter — one Cheryl Peek — remains. In 1990 Peek was fired from the same state attorney’s office by Harry Shorstein’s predecessor, Ed Austin, for jury manipulation. Now, as managing director for that office, she trains lawyers in professional ethics. Tuttle obviously thinks little of Corey’s ethics: Since her election, Corey seems to be determinedly purging from the ranks any who cross her and surrounding herself with inferiors whose ethical scruples appear to mirror her own. Meanwhile, those she chooses to victimize — most recently, George Zimmerman — far too often have little recourse. Di la Rionda, Mantei and Guy would seem to be confirmation of this. Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker notes that Kruidbos is not taking his termination lying down: A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey’s office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman’s prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday. Ben Kruidbos, Corey’s former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin’s cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws. ‘We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida’s Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court,’ said Kruidbos’ attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days. But surely Angela Corey is a great defender of blacks? Not so much, as Lifson explains: In 2011, she prosecuted a 12 year old boy, Cristian Fernandez, as an adult with every intention of sending him away for life. In a move eerily similar to Corey having George Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, indicted for perjury, Corey has also prosecuted Fernandez’s mother. This case got the attention of those defenders of the Philadelphia polling places, the New Black Panther Party. The next year, Corey’s office charged a 31-year old black woman, Marissa Alexander, with attempted murder when she fired a weapon, during an altercation with her ex-husband who was under a restraining order. Alexander is serving a 20-year sentence. The Florida NAACP was not amused. Beyond these cases, there is the fact that Corey’s office leads the state in prosecuting black juveniles as adults. In fact she prosecutes black juveniles as adults 20% above the statewide average. Redstate.com provides the statistics for FloridaWith a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward.
#8. To: nolu chan (#2)
Here are the percentages of black males versus white males transferred into the adult criminal system in Florida as a whole. This includes all judicial circuits, including the 4th judicial circuit:
2006-2007 – 146,950 total juvenile referrals. 4,622 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 53.3% were black. 24.5% were white.
2007-2008 – 145,539 total juvenile referrals. 4, 907 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.1% were black. 25.7% were white.
2008-2009 – 138,218 total juvenile referrals. 4,393 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.8% were black. 23.4% were white.
2009-2010 – 121,642 total juvenile referrals. 3,694 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.1% were black. 24.2% were white.
2010-2011 – 109,813 total juvenile referrals. 3,061 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.8% were black. 26.1% were white.
Here is the data for Angela Corey’s 4th judicial circuit. Note the considerable increase. Angela Corey took office in the beginning of 2009 and did nothing to decrease the number of black males tried as adults – a trend that started before her and has not ceased. The trend has likely increased for 2011-2012 since juvenile crime referrals in her district of Duval went up, while referrals in the majority of other Florida counties actually went down:
2006-2007 – 8125 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 61.7% were black. 31.3% were white.
2007-2008 – 9482 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 79.2% were black. 13.8% were white.
2008-2009 – 8911 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 71.1% were black. 19.6% were white.
2009-2010 – 6877 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 74.4% were black. 16.8% were white.
2010-2011 – 5889 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 62.2% were black. 27.8% were white.
Corey pursued George Zimmerman with single-minded zeal. But obviously, she is no champion of what the NAACP and other race-baiting organizations and individuals see as black rights issues. In fact, her judicial district, the 4th, is a majority white district. Redstate offers a possible explanation:
#17. To: A K A Stone (#8)
This goes a bit far claiming a near complete lack of evidence. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman committed all the elements of manslaughter. The only question in the case concerned the evidence to support or disprove the Zimmerman claim of self defense. At the time charges were brought, the self defense claim depended almost wholly on the assertions of Zimmerman. This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense. I doubt Governor Scott appointed her because of any purported defense of blacks. Governor Scott desired to ensure there was no possible appearance of state failure to vigorously prosecute the case. For the purpose of saving himself from a potential political headache, Corey was a good choice. I'm not a big fan of the prosecution in this case but it did well serve the political goals of Governor Scott.
Angela Corey–and her handpicked minions–were more than willing to ignore an almost complete lack of evidence in the pursuit of those needs.
There is no question she grossly overcharged in the Zimmerman case, in fact, there was virtually no evidence to support any charge, as the jury understood.
But surely Angela Corey is a great defender of blacks?
#19. To: nolu chan (#17)
The prosecution should be shot. They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense. They lied. They withheld evidence. The jury concurs.
This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19)
To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman? The evidence must show that Zimmerman, at the time of the shooting, held a reasonable belief that he faced imminent death or serious bodily injury. It concerns Zimmerman's state of mind, whether he held a belief and whether that belief was reasonable. None of the eyewitnesses saw the moment of shooting. The testimony of Dr. Vincent DiMaio did not yet exist at the time of charging.
They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense.
#24. To: nolu chan (#22)
The prosecutions witnesses made the defenses case. They had no evidence zero nada. Can you name one piece of evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's claims? Child Abuse? What the fuck was that all about?
#29. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Florida Stat 782.07(1) There was proof that George Zimmerman killed another human being by the act of shooting his gun while aiming it at Trayvon Martin's chest. I was unaware that the defense even tried to deny it. There was a dead body. There was the weapon used in the killing on the person of George Zimmerman, registered to George Zimmerman. That is not zero, nada. The only thing remaining is the question of lawful justification, claimed by George Zimmerman as self defense. The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable, of loss of life or serious bodily injury. Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. The others apparently persuaded them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted out of self defense was lacking, requiring a finding of lawful justification. This provides a useful defense for gang bangers. I feared that if I didn't shoot him, he would shoot me. It is a reasonable belief and legalizes gang banger shootings.
They had no evidence zero nada.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
#32. To: nolu chan (#29)
Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. They over reached and if it was a just world they should swing from rope or receive the sentence they tried to get Zimmerman to serve.
Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
[AKA Stone] Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. The prosecution must convince 100% to obtain a conviction. If any juror does not find guilt, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict (except in military trials). There was enough information to let a jury decide. Re B37, here is an interesting comment of said juror: B37: "It did. It made a BIG impression on me." The testimony that B37 says made a BIG impression on her was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer." [nc] Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
COOPER: "So, when he testified that George Zimmerman to be, more or less, overall thruthful, did that make an impression on you?"
SANFORD, Fla. -
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? Because they didn't want the truth they wanted to lynch Zimmerman.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited)
Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? I don't know of the "Lean." Only the Court can keep things out. I'm not familiar with what they found on Trayvon's computer, but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. You surely can't show that Zimmerman knew about it. It could not have been considered by Zimmerman in forming his state of mind and deciding to shoot. I believe there was a Court finding that the prosecutors committed a Brady violation regarding not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence and ordered it turned over. The matter was held over until the criminal trial was over and I believe a hearing on it is pending to consider sanctions against the prosecution team. I know there were photos involved and they were not entered into evidence because the defense chose not to submit them into evidence. Edit: I just watched the video and now know of "lean." Evidence of lean is speculative and irrelevant. I don't believe the court could allow it into the trial as admissible evidence.
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer.
#55. To: nolu chan (#48)
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. It is relevant because he was found in posessoin of 2/3 of the ingredients to make this drug drink called "lean". That drug makes you paranoid. Zimmerman said he was acting weird. So it certainly is relevant.
but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay.
#61. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#57)
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever. They're perfectly free to judge whether the law is fair or constitutional, regardless of what the judge's spin is. Jury nullification of bad law has long been popular, especially during prohibition when speakeasy's and moonshiners were frequently deemed not guilty. As a president once said of a supreme court decision..."They've made their decision, now let them enforce it". The decision was ignored. The people are the top tier of government, not elected or appointed gov officials. They're our servants, not our masters.
The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence
#62. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#61)
When the judge upholds an objection on the grounds of irrelevance, the evidence does not come in and the jury does not hear it or see it. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell. If the irrelevant evidence is brought in after an instruction to attorneys that it is excluded, that could result in sanctions or a mistrial. Once the case is given to the jury, they can do as they please. They only have to return their decision and need not tell anyone how they decided it. Jury nullification is a solution to bad law.
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
t. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
On the law, the judge was correct. The solicitation of the comment, and the comment, are clearly disallowed.
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
#68. To: nolu chan (#66)
No. I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
On the law, the judge was correct.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
I can quote the judge. You can only parrot the name John Jay.
I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
You can only parrot the name John Jay.
Replies to Comment # 72.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#72)
The cited Jay comment was not a court opinion but reportedly a comment in a charge to a civil case jury in 1794. The U.S. Supreme Court dispatched Jay's comment into retirement in 1895. These days judge's may and do prohibit attorneys from arguing jury nullification and, upon learning of a juror intent to nullify, can remove such juror for good cause before the verdict. From the final instructions to the Zimmerman jury: U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) Paragraph 24: Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) [...] In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case. [...] 156 U.S. 52 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. [...] 156 U. S. 64 The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this Court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority, and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established. If this be true, this Court should not announce a different rule unless impelled to do so by reasons so cogent and controlling that they cannot properly be overlooked or disregarded. Some of the members of this Court, after much consideration, and upon an extended review of the authorities, are of opinion that the conclusion reached by this Court is erroneous both upon principle and authority. For this reason, and because the question is of great importance in the administration of justice, and also involves human life, we deem it appropriate to state with more fullness than under other circumstances would be necessary the grounds upon which our judgment will rest, looking first to cases determined in the courts of the United States. In Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, 3 U. S. 4, a case in this Court tried by a special jury upon an amicable issue, Chief Justice Jay is reported to have said: "It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take Page 156 U. S. 65 upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court, for as on the one hand it is presumed that juries are best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." Of the correctness of this report, Mr. Justice Curtis in United States v. Morris, 1 Curtis 23, 58, expressed much doubt, for the reason that the Chief Justice is reported as saying that, in civil cases -- and that was a civil case -- the jury had the right to decide the law, and because also the different parts of the charge conflict with each other, the Chief Justice, according to the report, saying at the outset that it is the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, and of the court to decide questions of law, and in the succeeding sentence informing the jury that they had the right to take upon themselves the determination of both law and fact. If the Chief Justice said that it was the province of the court to decide questions of law, and the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, he could not have said that the jury had the right, in a civil case, to judge of and determine both law and fact. "The whole case," Mr. Justice Curtis said, "was an anomaly. It purports to be a trial by jury in the Supreme Court of the United States of certain issues out of chancery, and the Chief Justice begins by telling the jury that the facts are all agreed, and the only question is a matter of law, and upon that the whole court were agreed. If it be correctly reported, I can only say it is not in accordance with the views of any other court, so far as I know, in this country or in England, and is certainly not in accordance with the course of the Supreme Court for many years."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestt is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case.
To determine whether the court erred in dismissing Juror No. 5, we must first decide whether the district court's primary basis for the dismissal--the juror's intention to disregard the applicable criminal laws--constitutes "just cause" for his removal under Rule 23(b). In holding that a presiding judge has a duty to dismiss a juror who purposefully disregards the court's instructions on the law, we briefly review the factors that courts have traditionally considered to be "just cause" for dismissal pursuant to Rule 23(b), and discuss the dangers inherent in so-called "nullification." Having concluded that a deliberating juror's intent to nullify constitutes "just cause" for dismissal, we next consider whether the district court in this case had a sufficient evidentiary basis for concluding that Juror No. 5 was purposefully disregarding the court's instructions on the law.
Syllabus
End Trace Mode for Comment # 72.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]