This page has been a regular link in our posts about
Wayne Fincher, and has been included in the blogroll in the left margin.
Paul W. Davis has been a true champion in this, both for Mr. Fincher, and for making this information available to all of us, and deserves our gratitude.
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.