10th amendment discussion

[Suddenly]

NO. The Sparf ruling confirmed the right to jury nullification, while also ruling that the jury need not be told of the right.

Huh? The whole point is that the jury isn't to be told of this power to nullify; that in other words there is the power to do so but not the right.

 

[cwalner]

Sorry to have to correct you. It is a real case.

Swiping pepperoni pizza, gets man 25 years to life

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...DElWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5055,699286

On second though, this case actually highlights the absolute absurdity of your position.

Please note that the only option that the jury had was to either nullify or convict under 3 strikes. How does this in any way establish jury supremacy. It actually highlights how very limited the abilities of juries are. This case shows that the only ability the jury has is to nullify. The option of convicting but ignoring the 3 strikes penalty was not in their hands. In short the jury does not have the power to decide matters of law, they are 100% bound by it.

 

[Suddenly]

Except for two problems. In the newspaper article that you link to it states that he physically grabbed the pizza from a 12 and 15 year old who also testified that they had been intimidated before he took it. That intimidation is what ratcheted it up to a felony, not the slice.

Not really. The jury only convicted him of misdemeanor theft, which was enhanced to a felony because of prior convictions which since those included two prior felonies then got him the "Criminal Career Achievement Award" also known as a recidivist or "Three Strikes" penalty. True, he was not sentenced for just stealing a slice, he was sentenced because he is a lifelong ****up who doesn't play well with others.

California is a bit hard core about three strikes. There have been several cases of simple larcenies and such resulting in 25 to life from there.

Also, according to the article, the jury did not nullify, they convicted him of the felony, so this is not an 'actual case' as you presented it.

True, but I'm willing to concede that if the jury convicting him of stealing the slice were aware he would get 25 to life for it there is a significant chance they would refuse to convict. This doesn't mean as a legal matter they should be told of all of this, but if they were this is the kind of case where it might have an effect.

 

[Suddenly]

On second though, this case actually highlights the absolute absurdity of your position.

Please note that the only option that the jury had was to either nullify or convict under 3 strikes. How does this in any way establish jury supremacy. It actually highlights how very limited the abilities of juries are. This case shows that the only ability the jury has is to nullify. The option of convicting but ignoring the 3 strikes penalty was not in their hands. In short the jury does not have the power to decide matters of law, they are 100% bound by it.

Good point. If a juror stood up and told the judge the judge was wrong, then he'd be kicked off the jury and possibly charged with contempt.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not really. The jury only convicted him of misdemeanor theft, which was enhanced to a felony because of prior convictions which since those included two prior felonies then got him the "Criminal Career Achievement Award" also known as a recidivist or "Three Strikes" penalty. True, he was not sentenced for just stealing a slice, he was sentenced because he is a lifelong ****up who doesn't play well with others.

California is a bit hard core about three strikes. There have been several cases of simple larcenies and such resulting in 25 to life from there.

True, but I'm willing to concede that if the jury convicting him of stealing the slice were aware he would get 25 to life for it there is a significant chance they would refuse to convict. This doesn't mean as a legal matter they should be told of all of this, but if they were this is the kind of case where it might have an effect.

Indeed. And that's why prosecutors seek to have dumb people on juries, who do not read much, or stay up with current events. Otherwise if even one person knew of the case and the applicable punishment under the 3 strikes law, the jury might want to retrieve their brains and their checked consciences and vote to acquit.

 

[Robert Prey]

On second though, this case actually highlights the absolute absurdity of your position.

Please note that the only option that the jury had was to either nullify or convict under 3 strikes. How does this in any way establish jury supremacy. It actually highlights how very limited the abilities of juries are. This case shows that the only ability the jury has is to nullify. The option of convicting but ignoring the 3 strikes penalty was not in their hands. In short the jury does not have the power to decide matters of law, they are 100% bound by it.

Baloney. If they have the right to nullify, they are not bound by anything.

 

[cwalner]

Baloney. If they have the right to nullify, they are not bound by anything.

If the highlighted were true, they could convict of the theft but not sentence under 3 strikes. They are clearly bound by by the law because that option is not available to them.

 

[Robert Prey]

You seem to be playing some sort of game where you toss around terms that you don't understand in ways that are absurd to a degree where correcting this would take more time than I care to take.

If someone else reading this has a specific question about why the above is flatly stupid, I'll be glad to answer.

NO. It is you who is the game player. Dicta has to do with the non relevant comments in a court's decision, but it is in the context of the case itself. Jury instructions, have nothing to do with the case before the court and are not dicta and that's my point. Back to school, counselor.

 

[Robert Prey]

They should be told to follow the law. Legislators, not random groups of people, determine what the law is.

And jurors must check their brains and their consciences at the jury room door before goose-stepping back into court with their court approved verdict.

 

[Robert Prey]

Except for two problems. In the newspaper article that you link to it states that he physically grabbed the pizza from a 12 and 15 year old who also testified that they had been intimidated before he took it. That intimidation is what ratcheted it up to a felony, not the slice.

Also, according to the article, the jury did not nullify, they convicted him of the felony, so this is not an 'actual case' as you presented it.

Incorrect. It is an actual case used as an illustration of what injustice can occur when there is a failure to nullify, or be informed of the power to nullify.

 

[cwalner]

Incorrect. It is an actual case used as an illustration of what injustice can occur when there is a failure to nullify, or be informed of the power to nullify.

So moving goalposts now. You previously argued that the Jury has the power to decide matters of law, which the cited case clearly shows that they do not. So now you argue that they should.

Also if the juries were as all-powerful as you claim, why is it the judge, and the judge alone, who decides based on the law, what information the jury even gets to hear.

Juries are not just bound by the law, they are also blinded by it. Intentionally, and for very good reasons.

 

[Robert Prey]

So moving goalposts now. You previously argued that the Jury has the power to decide matters of law, which the cited case clearly shows that they do not. So now you argue that they should.

Also if the juries were as all-powerful as you claim, why is it the judge, and the judge alone, who decides based on the law, what information the jury even gets to hear.

Juries are not just bound by the law, they are also blinded by it. Intentionally, and for very good reasons.

The proper role of the judge is legal "advisor" to the jury. He is not a dictator, though today, judges give that impression to an un-informed jury. That's why all Americans should be fully informed when serving on a jury and that is the whole purpose of the Fully Informed Jury Association which I would recommend as a cure for your own misunderstandings. http://fija.org/

 

[Suddenly]

The proper role of the judge is legal "advisor" to the jury. He is not a dictator, though today, judges give that impression to an un-informed jury. That's why all Americans should be fully informed when serving on a jury and that is the whole purpose of the Fully Informed Jury Association which I would recommend as a cure for your own misunderstandings. http://fija.org/

So all judges are part of a conspiracy to deny people their rights. Nifty.

Right up there with claiming the fringe on a courtroom flag is significant, that there is a sooper seekrit 13th amendment that keeps lawyers from holding public office. And so on.


The conspiracy forum is down the street. That way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[crimresearch]

ROTFL!

So juries can't be trusted to read Article III of the Constitution and interpret 'all cases in law and equity' to mean all cases in law and equity, they have to go to a website to have their twoo sovereign citizen duties explained to them by people who have no clue what equity means, but who have AKs and cardboard license plates??

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The proper role of the judge is legal "advisor" to the jury.

Not in appellate courts, and not in the Supreme Court. They are the actual decision makers.

Again, please stop and read Article 3 of the Constitution. You seem to be ignorant of the way the judicial power is constituted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So moving goalposts now. You previously argued that the Jury has the power to decide matters of law, which the cited case clearly shows that they do not. So now you argue that they should.

In fact, he previously argued that juries have the authority to trump the Supreme Court, and since the Supreme Court only rules on matters of law (except in very rare cases), presumably that meant this imagined authority pertains to matters of law.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not in appellate courts, and not in the Supreme Court. They are the actual decision makers.

Again, please stop and read Article 3 of the Constitution. You seem to be ignorant of the way the judicial power is constituted.

Oh, baloney. We're talking Jury Trials, not Appellant Court or Supreme Court opinion which may be discarded by subsequent Juries, but do not involve juries in their decision making.

 

[Robert Prey]

ROTFL!

So juries can't be trusted to read Article III of the Constitution and interpret 'all cases in law and equity' to mean all cases in law and equity, they have to go to a website to have their twoo sovereign citizen duties explained to them by people who have no clue what equity means, but who have AKs and cardboard license plates??

Oh, but Constitutions are routinely denied to juries. You don't know that?

 

[Robert Prey]

So all judges are part of a conspiracy to deny people their rights. Nifty.

Right up there with claiming the fringe on a courtroom flag is significant, that there is a sooper seekrit 13th amendment that keeps lawyers from holding public office. And so on.
The conspiracy forum is down the street. That way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

False analogy, appeal to ridicule, begging the question, hasty generalization, let me count the ways. Shame on you counselor.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh, but Constitutions are routinely denied to juries. You don't know that?

I know that you are making that up, just as Eric Kane (from whom you apparently learned it), was.