After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. [More]A lot of people are expressing outrage over this--as well they should.
I think this happening to anyone is an outrage. And it will continue until all juries deadlock everywhere.
[Via Bob H]
9 comments:
This needs to be sent to everyone you know in the military. This clearly proves that the people that serve in our Arm Forces are scum to the courts and police. This man, Marine Cpl. Melroy H. Cort is an American hero to the highest degree. To allow the system to treat such people as nothing but a piece of shit to feed the parasitic system for bottom feeding parasites is a slap in the face to every man, woman in the military.
They hate us and have dehumanized us as useless shit to feed themselves and force the rest of us to foot the bill by being looted.
Folks make sure you get this story out to everyone you can that serves our country. They need to know what the system really thinks of them. They need to know we are on their side and many of us are from their rank and file.
Read this if you want to fulfill your civic duty on a grand jury:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3025
It's well worth the read to see how the grand jury system was hoodwinked in a power grab in 1946. The grand jury is a very important part of the functioning government. The prosecutor works for WE THE PEOPLE of the grand jury and not the other way around.
I'm happy to see the acquittal.
Who needs a gun MORE than a victim who cannot run away like they advise us to?
Thanks, Project Exile. See a gun, call 911. The conditioning has worked.
I'm conditioning myself to find hard cover whenever someone in a uniform approaches. Then we'll talk, maybe.
The national Mall where millions of people welcomed President Obama is the scene of rapes, robberies and murders of helpless unarmed victims. Between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. That's highly symbolic, I'd say.
The jury could have decided that he was innocent because the laws he was accused of violating are unconstitutional, or even that justice is best served by complete aquittal. It is the duty of the jury to decide the case AND the law in question. They are under no obligation to explain how they reached their verdict, either.
Verdicts like this (ammuniton possession) happen because 'We the People' forget that WE are the Sovreign in this Nation.
I hope he appeals and that one person on the jury understands the duties of jurors. The judges' instructions to the jury are complete BS, and the jurors are under NO obligation to find, according to those instructions.
IMHO the fact that Mr. Cort was convicted of anything is a travesty of justice . I wish him the best on his appeal and hope he can recover the attendant expenses when he wins.
On several calls to serve on a jury, during the in-court jury selection process, known as "voir dire", the judge specifically asked whether potential jurors would interpret the validity of the law beyond the instructions of law given by the judge. Jurors would use the judge's interpration only, not from the prosecution, the defense, nor the own jurors' own judgement of the validity of the law. I have yet to hear anyone
respond negatively to the judge's question except for one gentleman's stating that his religious principles prohibted him from judging anyone ("judge not lest ye be judged"), and that he forgave all those present in the court room for what they were about to do. Heathans!
Too bad this guy was not treated with the deference accorded to Senator Jim Webb's aide who was caught trying to bring a loaded handgun into a federal building.
It was quietly dropped and I am sure many apologies were tendered.
CorbinKale said...
The jury could have decided that he was innocent because the laws he was accused of violating are unconstitutional, or even that justice is best served by complete aquittal. It is the duty of the jury to decide the case AND the law in question. They are under no obligation to explain how they reached their verdict, either
Juries are intimidated by judges and lawyers. Jury members are instructed to follow the court's orders under both spoken and unspoken threats of legal action being imposed upon each and every one of them. Very few jury members have any knowledge of their rights, powers, and responsibilities. And, the courts want the jury members to remain as ignorant of the laws related to jury duty as possible.
Any attempts to educate potential jury members, such as passing out information as to the rights of juries anywhere near the courthouse on a date of a jury selection, will be dealt with as severely as possible.
Most judges and lawyers would like to see the jury system abolished. After all, they believe non-lawyers are altogether too ignorant to understand any part of the laws and the legal system.
Post a Comment