Hearing vs. Trial question

J

John/az2

New member
I had the opportunity to sit on on a "hearing" in the on going case of Robert Stewart owner Maddi-Griffin (.50 BMG kit guns).

At this hearing there was no jury, just the ATF and their lawyer, Robert and his lawyer, and the judge.

The question before the bench was, "Are these kits to be classified as functioning firearms?"

ATF said they were because they could be easily converted in a "reasonable" amount of time.

The judge ruled that they were and that Robert was to discontinue the manufacture of these kits.

My questions:

Why was there no jury present? If there was any question about the law involving a guilty/not guilty conclusion shouldn't there have been one to determine a verdict?

Because, as it seemed, there was an imperial decree handed down from the judge which effectively deprived Robert of his means of living.

To me this is not right and was a bold slap in the face of Justice and the 6th amendment.

Maybe I'm missing something. Could someone please explain the difference between a Hearing (no jury) and a Trial (by jury)?

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
John, I think this was what's called a Preliminary Hearing. The prosecution (Govt.) presents evidence before the court (judge) indicating that a crime has been committed by the defendant and the preponderance of this evidence is enough to have the defendant bound over for trial. It is not a trial in and of itself. The defendant is not required to enter a plea or entitled to present a case. He is entitled to be represented, however. If the judge believes the prosecution does not have compelling evidence, he/she can dismiss the case then and there. If the defendant is bound over for trial, a trial date is set and both sides get to work putting together a case. Of course, the defendant may "cop a plea" and never go to trial or plead innocent (a judge friend of mine used to say, "There is no such thing as 'innocent," unless you're a baby. There is only 'guilty' or 'not guilty.'") and fight the charge. In this instance it appears the prosecution wanted the court to rule on a definition of the evidence wherein the "kits" being sold were actually "firearms" or could be easily converted into "firearms."

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
A used car, or an old washing machine would need to be classified as firearms, because both could be converted to fire (once, at least) by a knowledgable machinist, in a modern shop, within 8 hours (a reasonable time).

------------------
I see no elephant in my cellar. If there were an elephant in my cellar, I would surely see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my cellar.

http://www.ety.com/tell/why.html
 
Greetings,

In any court case, criminal or civil, there may be several hearings on collateral matters before the trial begins. A jury is convened to decide guilt or innocence of the charge only after the judge has issued preliminary rulings regarding evidence which may be admitted, documents or evidence to be shared with the other party, etc.

I am unfamiliar with the particulars of this hearing and ruling. It sounds from your description as if the prosecutor had requested an order from the judge restraining Mr. Stewart from further business activities on the grounds that those activities constitute a violation of law, and the judge has agreed. It would be extraordinary, to say the least, if the judge were to take from the jury's hands the decision on the ultimate fact of whether the kits in question constitute a violation of the law.

As you point out, even if Mr. Stewart is acquitted, he will lose his business. If Mr. Stewart then wished to sue, he would be faced with the doctrine of Prosecutorial Immunity, which protects prosecuting agencies from suits brought by acquitted defendants.

Thank you for attending the proceedings and keeping us posted.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
What gives the judge the power to pick and choose from the available evidence in a trial?

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Ledbetter, thanks for the clarification regarding the matter of evidence (re: whether the "kit" constitutes a "firearm"). Interestingly enough, I just attended the Orange County Gun Show here in So. Cal. this past weekend. In speaking with a vendor at the .50 Cal. table who had a number of very well made and very expensive examples for sale (by order only), he made it very clear that the .50 Cal. fraternity, such that it is, is not very happy with Mr. Stewart at all. His view is that Stewart was a convicted felon, knew exactly what he was doing, and was basically "tweaking" BATF's nose. He believes Stewart is an embarrassment and only serves to further the agenda of antis like Henry Waxman, who want all .50 Cal. weapons outlawed, period.


------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
JohnAz,

There is a federal Evidence Code, most states have one too. In it are the rules defining, for example, hearsay evidence, marital, medical, clerical and attorney-client priviledge. There are also various exclusionary rules based on case law, such as the exclusion of evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment or confessions obtained in violation of the fifth.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
PKAY: Well, MY view is that Stewart was trying to make it possible for those of us without big bucks to enter their exclusive fraternity, and that's got them pissed. As for tweaking the BATF's collective nose, it OUGHT to be "tweaked", preferably with bolt cutters.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Hey Brett, I'm just the messenger here. I don't have a personal ax to grind with Stewart. It is interesting, though, that once convicted of a felony (however, the plea bargain went down), why would Stewart want to attract attention to himself by going into the gun "kit" business? Something doesn't make sense. Principle or martyrdom?

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
PKAY: Based on my email conversation with him, (In which he urged me to build the gun ASAP, store several years of food , ammo and fuel, and generally fort up.) I'd say it's principle.

It's basically what he knows how to do, as he was in the .50 cal. manufacturing business before he was entrapped. Can't blame the guy for trying to legally stay in a similar line of work. He accomidated the law to the minimum extent necessary, and then they changed the "law" on him by administrative decision, and deliberately didn't tell him, so that they could hang him HIGH. They could have shut him down with a registered letter, but when has the BATF ever done that when they saw an oportunity to kick somebody's door in?

He wants a court fight with them now, because he figures he's on sound legal ground, and that this is a fight that needs to be fought. I think he's right; No joke, by the BATF's standards we are ALL felons! This constructive possession business has GOT to be fought.

Unfortunately, he's not going to get any backup from the NRA, because the .50 cals are what they plan to throw to the wolves next. Bob Stewart and his customers are expendable.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top