Oregon Judge Grabs Jurors Off Sidewalk (Trees And Things)

thefadd: Re: I don't get why people don't like jury service

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:09:17 EST

I've been summoned three times. The first, I was off from college and happy to serve. I ended up on the jury--everyone else rather pissed to have been roped into it--of a guy brought up on drug dealing charges. He took a plea bargain as soon as they organi

wetkarma: Re: knowing your courts -- supremes vs circuits

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:26:23 EST

wetkarma, comment 5: "The jury system allows the jury to judge both the accessed AND the law."
Wrong. "it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them." Unit

profwhat: Re: knowing your courts -- supremes vs circuits

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:40:52 EST
Let me summarize my exact disagreements with you:
wetkarma, comment 5: "The jury system allows the jury to judge both the accessed AND the law."
Wrong. "it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that la

wetkarma: Re: my cites

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:14:56 EST
If we are arguing the semantics of 'right' v. 'power' -- then for the practical purposes/context of this discussion I have to ask - whats the difference?
Its pretty clear to me that the judges across several cases have contorted themselves into hiding t

wetkarma: knowing your courts -- supremes vs circuits

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:08:01 EST
It is hardly fair to use as your supporting point a 2nd degree case reference to a separate case when the case in question (US v. Carr) actually rejects that very argument. Moreover (and I'll get to this in a bit -- the quote you refer to as the Sparf supr

skeptic: Re: historical origin of "peers"

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:06:02 EST
You are correct. I lost count of my estates because sometimes royalty is considered a separate class from the nobility, but the two were combined into one noble class at the time journalists were counted as a theoretical fourth estate.
Ther

zyxwvutsr: Re: my cites

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:43:33 EST

...lets look at United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 where the court ruled on issue of jury nullification this way - a case which agreed that jury nullification was a right...
Just to underline what profwhat wrote

profwhat: Re: my cites

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:18:58 EST
I find it extraordinary that you claim to have read the Carr case, yet conveniently failed to quote the part that eviscerates your entire argument and supports mine:
Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the

pO157: Re: Jury nullification

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:06:31 EST
Yes, jurors have the power to ignore their oath and acquit the assassin of a civil rights leader. They also have the "power" to stomp on the defense attorney's foot, go downstairs and raid the cafeteria without paying, and steal the courtroom fla

JimmyHavok: I don't get why people don't like jury service

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 04:26:30 EST
I've been summoned twice. Once, I was let off because I was working over the summer for my tuition money, the second time the case I was selected for settled before trial.
My girlfriend has been summoned and served twice. One case was pretty munda

ckm: Re: In which jurisdiction ...

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 03:32:08 EST
San Francisco

wetkarma: my cites

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 03:20:25 EST
A blog which imo inaccurately summarizes the ruling of US v. Sean Carr is no way to go through life son...I mean no way to prove the point. Instead lets look at United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 where the court ruled on issue of jury nullification

jwb: grab me some jurors

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:50:14 EST
The article makes it sound like Oregon has a law which allows this instant jury conscription. I can't say that it bothers me. The right of the accused to a speedy trial is important, and serving on juries is a mandatory requirement of citizensh

Steve Urkel: Re: Lost Amid All The Anguish Over

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:16:45 EST
I had heard of it before. Here's another example.
I like it because I bet it's something they used to do in the Old West.

MayorBob: Lost Amid All The Anguish Over Jury Nullification.

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:47:37 EST
Is as compelling an issue as whether a juror should be able to overturn established law in reaching a verdict. That issue is, should any judge be able to order court officers to go out on the street and dragoon people to be thrown into a jury pool? I've

jwb: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:00:37 EST
Jury nullification powers can be seen as a check on government, when the government oversteps the boundary between its own rights and its powers. Governments throughout history have exercised powers well beyond their rights, and often the people have

profwhat: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:46:05 EST
The disturbing part of jury nullification advocates is that they either do not or cannot distinguish between a "power" and a "right." Drawing that distinction is one of the major accomplishments of the last 900-odd years of civilization.
Yes, juro

jwb: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:27:54 EST
Despite the fact that jurors are rarely or never informed of it, and regardless of the debate among legal scholars if nullification is approriate, it is quite clear that juries have the de facto power of nullification.

delete me: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:26:49 EST
Before you get to be a juror, you have to swear to uphold the law.
This is usually right about when I get sent home.

profwhat: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:06:02 EST
You couldn't be more wrong. Jury nullification is illegal. Before you get to be a juror, you have to swear to uphold the law. Nullification of a law is not upholding it. If you're nullifying, you are yourself breaking the law.
Th

gerrymander: Re: historical origin of "peers"

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:00:09 EST
He was confusing that and "Fifth Column." We're talking about journalists, so it's an easy mistake to make.

zyxwvutsr: Re: "a jury of your peers."

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:34:11 EST

The inherent premise behind a jury trial is that your peers (the average man on the street) can indeed come to a just decision on your case
That is not at all the premise. The reason for a trial by one's peers is to have pers

zyxwvutsr: Re: historical origin of "peers"

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:34:03 EST
Journalists are the "fourth estate."

pO157: Re: The phrase is a jury of your peers.

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:05:54 EST
" For all the reasons profwhat cited, I agree it would be a bad idea and one which would lead to weakening the fabric of laws in our society. Do you really want a radical anarchist to sit in on a trial where the thug who wandered into your store with a

MayorBob: Re: In which jurisdiction ...

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:57:15 EST
Well, I really didn't speculate on the political viewpoint of the thug. I was merely showing why not allowing the prosecution (or defense) to have some discretion in which "peer" gets to sit in judgment isn't really that bad an idea.

wetkarma: Re: In which jurisdiction ...

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:54:54 EST

... is the average man on the street an anarchist?
I dunno -- you are the one constructing the scenario where an anarchist commits a crime and is freed by a fellow anarchist who somehow is selected for jury duty.

skeptic: historical origin of "peers"

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:44:28 EST
In the feudal system, people were divided into four classes (clerical, royal, noble, and common - later, journalists were sometimes described as the "fifth estate"). Many legal abuses arose from the fact that commoners were judged by the nobility rat

MayorBob: In which jurisdiction ...

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:29:08 EST
... is the average man on the street an anarchist?

wetkarma: "a jury of your peers."

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:21:59 EST

Do you really want a radical anarchist to sit in on a trial where the thug who wandered into your store with a gun shot you and stole the contents of your cash register. After all, according to my putative anarchist, you have no more right to that

wetkarma: Re: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:19:24 EST

You don't like the law? Tough; buck up, listen to the witnesses, decide whether the guy did what he's charged with, and go home.
Ah but that is not the premise behind a juror - you've described the role of a Judge.
The jury system

MayorBob: The phrase is "a jury of your peers."

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:17:43 EST
That is, of course, the principle but it doesn't mean "we'll select a jury composed of people just like the accused." It means we'll select a random group of people we can gather up through voting records or drivers license registration (or whatever the m

profwhat: Jury nullification

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:52:18 EST
I have no objection to being called for jury service, but if I'm to serve I'd want the ability to nullify any laws based on my view of the case facts. Few prosecutors want jurors who believe in jury nullification.
In fact, no good prosecut

pO157: Re: on jury service

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:30:28 EST
In principle it is the best idea. In practice, not so much. Have an advanced degree in science, law, or whatever the matter at hand is? You're gonna get excused. Demonstrate an ability to think for yourself? You better believe that's an excuse.
Even th

wetkarma: on jury service

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:01:17 EST
In principle I've always thought juries were an elegant concept in the pursuit of justice. However, knowing that I (if completely truthful) would be very unlikely to be selected to be on a jury makes me think that a trial by jury doesn't really allow peopl