The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: indago on May 19, 2012, 07:10:49 AM
-
Journalist Larry Neumeister wrote for The Associated Press 19 April 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge threw out charges Thursday against a man who urged jurors in multiple East Coast cities from Florida to New Hampshire to sometimes disregard the law and vote their conscience.
U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan tossed the case against Julian Heicklen, saying the First Amendment protects speech concerning judicial proceedings as long as the speech doesn't prevent fair and impartial justice. She noted that the essence of the First Amendment is that falsehoods are better exposed through discussion than through suppression.
...Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Mermelstein had reminded Wood during oral arguments last month that Heicklin also has regularly distributed pamphlets in front of federal courthouses in Philadelphia, Boston, Tampa, Fla., Alexandria, Va., Concord, N.H., Springfield, Mass., Hartford, Conn., and Albany and White Plains in New York state. She called him a "significant threat" to the integrity of the judicial system.
Wood wrote that Heicklen did not violate the law by handing out pamphlets discussing the role of juries in society and urging jurors to follow their consciences regardless of instructions on the law. She said the law would be violated only if Heicklen tried to influence the action or decision of a juror on a specific case pending before that juror.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
article (http://news.yahoo.com/ny-judge-tosses-jury-nullification-charges-221125884.html)
-
Journalist Benjamin Weiser wrote for The New York Times 25 February 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian P. Heicklen ...had been cited at least six times since October 2009 for distributing fliers without a permit at the entrance of the Manhattan federal courthouse. ...federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates a law against jury tampering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Heicklen was distributing pamphlets informing juries of their right to say NO. And speaking of JURY TAMPERING (http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg9.htm), that is what the judge is doing when he instructs the jury. Alan Scheflin, in his article Jury Nullification: The Right To Say No, noted that Dean Roscoe Pound termed the jury's self determination to go against the will of a judge and his instructions "jury lawlessness", and stated that this "jury lawlessness is the great corrective". Mr. Scheflin stated:
"Thus, the jury stands between the will of the state and the will of the people as the last bastion in law to avoid the barricades in the streets. To a large extent, the jury gives to the judicial system a legitimacy it would otherwise not possess. Judge control of jury verdicts would destroy that legitimacy. A juror who is forced by the judge's instructions to convict a defendant whose conduct he applauds, or at least feels is justifiable, will lose respect for the legal system which forces him to reach such a result against the dictates of his conscience."
The terms "jury lawlessness", and "jury nullification" are used to lay a guilt trip upon a jury, when, in fact, the jury has the right to determine for themselves all the factors in the case, be it civil or criminal, and to disregard, or not disregard, any statements, or instructions from a prosecutor, attorney, judge, or witness in the case.
Mr. Scheflin wrote of a juror statement, in an interview with some of the jurors after the trial in the case of US v Spock:
"I knew they were guilty when we were charged by the judge. I did not know prior to that time - I was in full agreement with the defendants until we were charged by the judge. That was the kiss of death!" So, if this is not a case of jury tampering, there is no such thing.
-
Anyone else notice that most of the more controversial case decisions made by courts lately have been made by FEMALE judges? :???:
-
This one's actually not all that controversial, the judge was completely correct and the guy should never have been charged with any jury tampering offense in the first place...other, petty offenses like littering or doing-some-damn-thing-without-a-permit where there actually is some requirement for one and a mechanism to get a permit, sure, but not jury tampering.
-
Anyone else notice that most of the more controversial case decisions made by courts lately have been made by FEMALE judges? :???:
Does that mean they are liberal, post-menopausal, PMS'ing or some combination?
-
On the other side of the coin is the case of Darlene Span...
Darlene Span related that two federal marshals came to her home while she was having a yard sale. They had no uniform. She described their attire as "wrinkled up shabby street wear." They wore cowboy boots, and had no badges to indicate that they were government personnel. She said that "they were sweaty, they were rude, and they were cocky." They showed her a picture of a man that was wanted by the federal government, and named the man. They were looking for a Mickey Michael, whose name was similar to the name of Darlene's brother, who was Mike Michael. She said "The person they were looking for lived in Indiana, and we lived in Phoenix all our life." She also noted that there was about a twenty-five year difference in their ages. She explained that she, and her brother Jerry, who was helping with the yard sale, tried to be helpful with the marshals, attempting to explain the discrepancies in the descriptions of the two men. The man that they were looking for had "jumped bail" on a robbery charge twelve years earlier. She said that the marshals then went "out of control", and demanded that she would have to get her brother there, right now, or she "would be sorry." She then demanded that the marshals leave the property. They would not leave. The marshals then began to manhandle Darlene and her brother Jerry, handcuffing them. Her Mother, who was also helping with the yard sale, picked up a camera and started taking photos of the scene. The marshals manhandled the woman and took her film from her. Darlene and her brother, Jerry, were taken to a local jail and were incarcerated for three days. They were later released. A year and eight months later, charges were brought against them of resisting and obstructing the officers in the performance of their duty. The government had suppressed the testimony of some of the witnesses present at the yard sale before the Grand Jury relating to these charges. Darlene and her brother found five other federal marshals who would testify at the trial that the two marshals, David A. Danes, and Gary T. Grotewald, were under internal affairs investigation for their behavior in other incidents. A marshal, Thomas Lopez, had written a letter to the federal prosecutor in this case, Ivan Mathew, relating his "personal knowledge" that the two marshals "have a reputation for provoking assault." The prosecutor took Darlene and her brother into a room and told them that if they put the testimony of these marshals into evidence, charges would be filed against other of their family members. One marshal who went to the prosecutor and was willing to testify against Dane and Grotewald was told that he "better go home and think twice before he lets anybody know that Grotewald and Danes beat up the Span family."
Darlene learned from some of the jurors, who waited for them after the trial to talk with them, that during the trial, they realized that the testimony of David Danes, and Gary Grotewald, "was rehearsed", and that they believed the testimony of witnesses, who were present at the garage sale during the incident, and that Darlene and her brother were innocent of the charges brought against them. They felt intimidated by the prosecutor, and the judge, Robert C. Broomfield, of the federal District Court, one declaring that she felt that she would be put in jail if she did not write "guilty" on the paper. The jurors, some in tears, believing that Darlene Span and her brother were innocent of the charges, declared them guilty. Darlene explained that some of the jurors called, even months later, saying that they were ill over having to find her guilty, knowing that she was innocent. One juror, Sally Osborne, speaking on a radio talk show of the incident, declared that the Span family had been "victimized".
Yes, Darlene Span was victimized. She was victimized by the jury. They broke the faith with one of the most portentous of the laws of God:
You shall not pervert justice, either by favouring the poor or by subservience to the great. You shall judge your fellow countryman with strict justice. — Leviticus 19 v 15
Alan Dershowitz, a professor from the Harvard University, took up the appeal for Darlene Span and her brother, finding over twenty appealable issues for review by the federal Court of Appeals; but even he could not undo the damage that the jury had done. The appeal failed to exonerate the Span family. Darlene and her family have lost their home because of the expenses of their ordeal with the Federales.
Doing what is right is a matter of character. The jury knew very well the right thing to do and didn't do it. But, that's what happens when you have a toady people, and a government on the take.
STORY1 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1990-05-16/news/don-t-mess-with-the-marshal/full)
STORY2 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-03-16/news/the-span-of-an-injustice/full)
STORY3 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996-04-04/news/lives-overturned/full)
STORY4 (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996-04-25/news/letters/full)
-
ENGLISH!!! Do you speak it, mother****er?
Try some paragraphs when you cut and paste--that shit's harder to read than one of vesta's posts.
-
ENGLISH!!! Do you speak it, mother****er?
Try some paragraphs when you cut and paste--that shit's harder to read than one of vesta's posts.
Awwww! Poor Baby! Now you have to lift a finger to push the back button so you won't have to read it.
Here, use this one...
(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/2011/05/MiddleFinger4.jpg)
-
:runaway:
-
ENGLISH!!! Do you speak it, mother****er?
Try some paragraphs when you cut and paste--that shit's harder to read than one of vesta's posts.
And harder than superman's kneecap.
-
:runaway:
What, no catfight ?
-
Awwww! Poor Baby! Now you have to lift a finger to push the back button so you won't have to read it.
Here, use this one...
(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/2011/05/MiddleFinger4.jpg)
Aww, get called for having no thought process?
:loser:
-
So, if I'm understanding correctly the OP is in favor of the doctrine of jury nullification.
That's not to judge one way or the other but to short form the reams of unformatted data.
-
So, if I'm understanding correctly the OP is in favor of the doctrine of jury nullification.
That's not to judge one way or the other but to short form the reams of unformatted data.
I don't know if you've hit the nail on the head. You may be right, but the larger point I think the OP is making is the censorship.
-
Awwww! Poor Baby! Now you have to lift a finger to push the back button so you won't have to read it.
Why would I want to read something that 1--isn't your work, 2--wastes my time, 3--is about as useful as a football bat?
Bottom line, quit jacking the bandwidth, fag.
-
Why would I want to read something that 1--isn't your work, 2--wastes my time, 3--is about as useful as a football bat?
Bottom line, quit jacking the bandwidth, fag.
I wrote it a few years back and copied it from my files.
-
So you're the ****er who writes for those worthless "alternative" rags supported by strip club/gay bar/plastic surgery ads.
And I see so much wrong with that story (yeah, I muddled through that shit) that I wasn't feeling the least bit sorry for that family. Oh, and before you tell me I don't know the area, most of my father's side of the family lives/lived in Phoenix, so yeah, I kinda got a bit of background on the deal, thanks for playing, have a nice day.
-
And I see so much wrong with that story
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2dig2dy.gif)
Hmmm! Didn't budge on that one...
-
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2dig2dy.gif)
Hmmm! Didn't budge on that one...
Of course it didn't budge...you're not open to the fact that you could be wrong...or that we're not buying the agend you're pushing in your article.
-
Why bring this up now anyway? This case is 18 years old.
Who was running the Justice Department at the time?
-
Why bring this up now anyway? This case is 18 years old.
Because it was an example of jury tampering, which is the subject of this thread.
-
Awwww! Poor Baby! Now you have to lift a finger to push the back button so you won't have to read it.
Here, use this one...
(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/2011/05/MiddleFinger4.jpg)
What, other than spam, is the point of your post? Forgive me, but I'm not quite catching why you're posting here.
-
What, other than spam, is the point of your post? Forgive me, but I'm not quite catching why you're posting here.
The subject is Jury Tampering. Go back to the beginning of this thread and read down to here.
-
Because it was an example of jury tampering, which is the subject of this thread.
Doesn't answer the question of the relevance of an 18 year old case on anything going on today.
-
Because it was an example of jury tampering, which is the subject of this thread.
Really? In the excerpt you gave, you showed no evidence of jury tampering. I see ALLEGATIONS of jurors who, in spite of their "feelings", decided guilty or not guilty based on the facts as presented to them and the instructions given to them by the judge--which, IIRC, having served on more than one jury, is YOUR ****ING JOB.
-
A judge can set aside a jury's conviction of a defendant and order a new trial or even pronounce the defendant not guilty. He cannot do the opposite though.
-
Doesn't answer the question of the relevance of an 18 year old case on anything going on today.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/970/573/269642/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1078714.html
Upheld twice before being overturned by the 9th Circus in 1996 on the grounds the defense lawyer sucked.
What our little noob seems to forget is the old adage, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
-
The subject is Jury Tampering. Go back to the beginning of this thread and read down to here.
I didn't ask about the subject. I saw a couple of posts. I was wondering what your POINT is? There's a difference between a subject and a point; you know that, right?
So, please, and I'll type slower this time:
What, other than spam, is the point of your post? Forgive me, but I'm not quite catching why you're posting here.
-
This little shitstain loves to open seemingly "controversial" threads, posts all manner of inane shit, then steps back to watch the party unfold.
In short, he's a troll.
-
This little shitstain loves to open seemingly "controversial" threads, posts all manner of inane shit, then steps back to watch the party unfold.
In short, he's a troll.
`
:busted:
-
`
:busted:
A cow that went dry
Ray Charles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLWoiC-3b60)
A Hen that won't lay