I'd like to call your attention to two documents and recommend you set aside several minutes to read them:
Fincher Trial Testimony: This is what the jury was not allowed to hear. Note how predatory Prosecutor Plumlee attempts to appear subtle in his ridicule and contempt. He comes off like a coward attacking a bound warrior. Fincher's knowledge and ability to articulate it make it clear who the better man is, and that his are words the court could not allow an impartial and open-minded jury to hear.
Judge Hendren's Jury Instructions: After suppressing Fincher's testimony and any references to the Constitution and Second Amendment from the jury, the judge establishes the "Duty of the Jury" (Instruction 2), mandating they "apply the law, as I give it to you," and citing "Authority: 8th Circuit Model Instruction 3.02."
Thing is, the "authority" admits it is only a guideline:
These are intended to be model, not mandatory...They are not intended to be treated as the only method of properly instructing a jury.Yet this, in the eyes of those who would rule us, is enough to override centuries of legal precedent and tradition, and the clear intent and understanding of those who established our system of justice.
I'm disappointed no one in the Fincher case had the knowledge (or perhaps the courage to buck an obviously rigged system?) to vote "Not Guilty." I'd just say I wasn't convinced and leave it at that. Besides, how can such witnesses--who would speak against a man for exercising his unalienable right to keep and bear arms and, in many cases, violate their oaths of office--be considered "credible"?
We need to do a much better job of informing our countrymen of their rights, duties and AUTHORITY as jurors. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if a challenge to the verdict based on improper jury instructions would be "granted" standing in the federal courts, but I think it's worth at least looking in to.
David,
ReplyDeleteI note your comments about Mr. Plumlee, and I think there are some things that would be helpful in understanding the difference in the way Wayne Fincher comes across versus Chris Plumlee.
First, Chris Plumlee is a wet behind the ears little boy. My impression is that he is either late 20's or very early 30's in his years. As you know, Wayne is over 60 years old. It is a given that age and experience make a world of difference in how one sees things, and responds to those things.
Second, Chris Plumlee only knows what he was taught, otherwise (my impression is) he doesn't have a clue. I did not see anything in his conduct during the entire trial to dissuade me from this conclusion in my analysis of him.
Third, by appearance, Chris Plumlee is a "pretty boy" and he conducts himself as such. This combined with the second point means that the boy is shallow and lives on the surface. Of course, if you are going to miscarry justice in the way that Mr. Plumlee did, you cannot have any depth to your character, otherwise you cannot live with yourself.
Now, this is not to say that Wayne was, or is perfect. However, he does have depth, and he does have character. Moreover, he holds certain things to be absolute, unchangable truth. I doubt seriously this is the case with Mr. Plumlee.
Thus, you see night and day difference between the two in the exchange that took place. There were a couple of times that I thought that Wayne would have liked to tanned Chris Plumlee's hide for being disrespectful. If I remember correctly, the thought that crossed my mind was that Mr. Plumlee was a "snot-nosed brat" because he certainly acted like it.
By the way, if anyone thinks this is harsh or slanderous, it isn't. It is simply the truth about the impressions I had of the two individuals involved.
To summarize, it is the difference between a man and a boy.
ReplyDelete