SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
The country is past the point of no return. We are doomed and merely waiting for the fall to begin.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In my opinion, a defendant or accuser's active opposition to Free Speech should be important to jurors for the following reasons. First, someone who actively opposes our most Fundamental Human Rights should be seen as The Enemy of Humankind rather then a fellow citizen. Second, such person is morally bankrupt and thus capable of any wrong doing they are accused of.
No. Jury Nullification is a Right as old as the Jury Duty itself.This is asinine. It really, really is stupid.irst, avery well have absolutely nothing to do withe the charges against him.
Secondly, mere capability does not determine guilt.
Your idea is stupid...
On a jury one time we had a person who lied during voir dire. She testified that she could judge the matter impartially. During the initial discussion she stated to the rest of the jury that under no circumstances she would find the defendant guilty. I had the bailiff carry a note to the judge about her statement and after questioning the juror. she read the juror the riot act, threatened to jail her for contempt, then tossed her off the jury and appointed one of the alternates. Being a juror is all about following the law, not about following your prejudices or private beliefs. If you can't do that you have no business being on a jury. My wife has never sat on a jury, when questioned in voir dire she states that she feels her religious beliefs prevent her from judging other people. She is always excused with a thank you.Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.
It's NOT your right. A juror swears to judge the defendant impartially based solely upon the EVIDENCE presented in court. A defendant is legally entitled to a impartial jury as is the public. When a juror tilts the scales of justice based upon personal grudges he or she is wrong and I'd even say evil. You'd obviously feel right at home on one of those early twentieth century deep south juries that let KKK members go free for lynching blacks. After all, those jurors had personal grudges against blacks.What I mean is that any juror bases the decision partially on personal grudges they hold. This is our right.
In my opinion, anyone who is silenced by Cancel Culture should take every reasonable legal step to act against Best Interests of Cancel Culture proponents.
And if both cases are plausible, you have to refuse to convict. The prosecution has to prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt". If it fails to do so, even if the defendant is obviously guilty the jury has to acquit. That's the way the system is designed to work.Jury Nullification is a right as ancient as Jury System itself.
In over 90% of jury cases, both the Prosecution and Defense make plausible cases.
And Henry Fonda did his part and stood firm preventing that miscarriage of justice.That has been the case since the beginning of Trial by Jury.
Juror 3 of Twelve Angry Men was assaulted by his son, thus he wanted to convict a totally unrelated young man of patricide.
I oppose Racism 100%. KKK juries were evil.It's NOT your right. A juror swears to judge the defendant impartially based solely upon the EVIDENCE presented in court. A defendant is legally entitled to a impartial jury as is the public. When a juror tilts the scales of justice based upon personal grudges he or she is wrong and I'd even say evil. You'd obviously feel right at home on one of those early twentieth century deep south juries that let KKK members go free for lynching blacks. After all, those jurors had personal grudges against blacks.
Sometimes silence is golden.On
On a jury one time we had a person who lied during voir dire. She testified that she could judge the matter impartially. During the initial discussion she stated to the rest of the jury that under no circumstances she would find the defendant guilty. I had the bailiff carry a note to the judge about her statement and after questioning the juror. she read the juror the riot act, threatened to jail her for contempt, then tossed her off the jury and appointed one of the alternates.
Reiterated. If anyone who supports Freedom is on a jury where an Enemy of Freedom is either a defendant or a plaintiff, they should act against the best interest of the Enemy of Freedom.When we have no Free Speech, we are not really Free. He who has no right to voice his grievances has no rights. Those who oppose our Free Speech take away all our rights and our personhood.
Thank you. Are you a defender or a prosecutor?I am a 72-year old attorney.
I have never heard of a juror prosecuted for bias. If juror misconduct is discovered it is a mistrial, the verdict is vacated and a new trial is ordered. If a jury should agree to find against the evidence, as jury nullification, the judge can dismiss the jury verdict and enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict instead. That's why you don't hear about jury nullification.If someone can find such cases, I am ready to change my opinion.
In any case, if both the prosecutor and the defender make plausible cases, then prosecuting a juror for bias would seem to be impossible.
Thank you!I have never heard of a juror prosecuted for bias. If juror misconduct is discovered it is a mistrial, the verdict is vacated and a new trial is ordered. If a jury should agree to find against the evidence, as jury nullification, the judge can dismiss the jury verdict and enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict instead. That's why you don't hear about jury nullification.
It's not about "credible cases". The prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense makes a credible case, under the law the jury MUST acquit.Thank you!
In most cases both Prosecution and Defense make credible cases. It is a juror's legal right and Ethical Duty to act against the best interest of Enemy of Freedom be they the Defendant or Plaintiff.
I mean, in most cases a juror can make good arguments either for Defense or Prosecution.It's not about "credible cases". The prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense makes a credible case, under the law the jury MUST acquit.
If that's the case, the prosecution hasn't done its job.I mean, in most cases a juror can make good arguments either for Defense or Prosecution.
It's sometime between 1840 - 1850, I'm an ardent Abolitionist, serving on a jury trying someone for theIf that's the case, the prosecution hasn't done its job.
I've served as a juror on five trials over the years and I never thought the defense and prosecution had equally good cases. One was always better than the other. Unfortunately, in a couple of the trials the prosecution didn't make the case against what I thought were obviously guilty defendants and we had to acquit them.
Under the law, jurors don't have the luxury of voting their conscience, they have to follow the law.
Then you'd be be wrong. Morally right, but wrong. You would never survive vior dire if you were honest about your feelings. A juror takes an oath to judge the defendant SOLEY upon the evidence presented in court. What if it's flipped and you are judging a slave catcher for the murder of a member of the Underground Railway? Would you want an ardent anti-abolitionist allowing the murderer to go free because of HIS feelings on slavery? Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason, justice has to be objective, not subjective to have a meaning.It's sometime between 1840 - 1850, I'm an ardent Abolitionist, serving on a jury trying someone for thecrime,er, noble cause of helping a slave find freedom. Wild horses wouldn't drag a guilty verdict from me.