Unlike Judge Weinstein, I have reflexively incorporated into my jury instructions what can only be viewed as an anti-nullification charge: “You should not be concerned about the wisdom of any rule I state. Regardless of any opinion that you may have as to what the law may be or ought to be, it would violate your sworn duty to base a verdict on any view of the law other than that which I give you.” [More]And then he goes on to tell us that doesn't work. Typical. But not surprising from the Brady talking points he cites.
Screw him. Vote your conscience and nullify the influence of judicial tyrants.
If it doesn't help secure the Blessings of Liberty, the hell with what these arrogant authoritarians say. Besides, they routinely break a more solemn oath every time they put on the black robe...
And yeah, I realize this is a year old. Unfortunately, as long as it is still "relevant," it will remain a timely reference.
[Via cycjec]
6 comments:
Sometimes the flaw in logic may be revealed by approaching from a different angle.
People who claim that the US Code is the mechanism by which new or modified federal powers are created have a difficult time explaining the purpose of an apparently redundant amendment-making process. A jury that simply echoes a judge's opinion might as well be a collection or 12 sock puppets.
I'm not going to paint all of our jurists with the same brush, but when I consider overruled jury decisions (huh?), application of irrelevant law, or court's instruction in a manner that is undiscovered in the actual text of the law--and of the numerous three-strikes-type, automatic sentencing legislation--it's pretty clear the goal is to cripple or eliminate juries whenever the state is bringing its case.
I just want to ask these judges what they think the point of the jury is exactly. Evidently it's just to rubber stamp whatever the state says is right.Deciding whether Joe Smith "did it" makes for good t.v. crime dramas but that's the easy part for the jury.
Art. 1, Sec. 1 of Georgia’s Constitution
"...In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts."
I loves me sum Georgia.
By this bastard's own revealed philosophy he would have had to reverse the convictions at Nuremberg. After all, none of the defendant's broke Germany's laws and, in fact, showed enthusiastic duty to it..
This judge is of the same stripe as Himmler, Eichmann, Goering, et al.
I think I should ignore him at all possible opportunities, until he crosses the line and then we should hang him much sooner than we did his philosophical brethren.
As I have pointed out many times, Germany's major sin was not perpetrated by the Nazis. But rather by all the accomodaters of them. This judge is trying to force accomodation of his tyrannical bent on juries.
Keep the ropes handy.
I have always been of the opinion that a judges’ responsibility is to ensure that justice is done in his court room, and that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Many courts have held that the jury’s responsibility is not only to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence, but also to determine the law’s applicability in each case before it. The founders of our nation never intended that Juries and judges be rubber stamps for the prosecution.
During my peace officer days I saw way too many cases decided before the defendant ever saw the inside of the courtroom and damn few jury trials. Most jury members have no idea the authority they possess and the lawyers want to keep it that way.
[W3]
"Shall not be infringed" trumps "security of a free state" and "well-regulated militia" as those were just unnecessary justifications for the right to be specifically protected from government meddling of any sort and completely separate from the basic human right to own and to carry weapons. If the judge has trouble understanding this, he is not smart enough to judge a cat show, much less a human's fate. He is also a liar for not informing the jury of their duty to judge the "law" as well as the facts of the case. fija.org: fighting corrupt courts, one juror at a time.
Post a Comment