On Jury Duty and Tort Reform

J

John/az2

New member
I can fully relate to the concerns of CasidyGT, as it seems that we are driving toward the inevitable lemming cliff with all of the infringements of freedoms that we put up with, firearm ownership being just one (1) of the infringements.

Benjamin Franklin said (loosely quoted), “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it!”

From all indicators we are losing it. This is happening just as it was designed, for people who cannot govern themselves, nor are willing to educate themselves about the distinction of powers granted to their government and enforce those boundaries, literally bind themselves to the inevitable fate.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the merits and ideas of Jury Duty.

I would like to start out by introducing a link that will take you to a document about the history of the Jury and it’s duty. It also outlines within this discussion the distinct and separate powers and obligations of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader (found here) http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html to read the file. It is 95 pages long and in my opinion well worth printing it out.

Here is the site it is to be found on http://www.fija.org/. Click on “Trial by Jury, The definitive, historic treatise on jury power by Lysander Spooner.”

Take it with you to read at the office or on the “throne.” It will be well worth your time to read it. And please post your thoughts as you go. I am on the chapter dealing with the language of the Magna Carta so far.

I know interests are diverse, and I am hoping that this topic will generate enough interest that we can discuss ways to productively share this information with others.

In Arizona we had over 9000 NEW voters register. From what I understand those who are called for jury duty are done so from that very list.

This homework assignment is strictly voluntary :D, and I am looking forward to your ideas and insights.

Sincerely,


------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited February 19, 2000).]
 
I think that the present jury system is becomming a joke. The Govt. with its limitless amount of money can appeal over and over again until the defendant goes broke. On a smaller scale, here in Florida, the St. John's water management district has sued a land owner for cleaning out a minor drainage ditch so his house won't get flooded. The St. Johns water mangement district (using taxpayer funds) has forced many a land owner to settle out of court and pay a fine because he could not afford to continue to fight in court. :mad:
 
Shotgun,

I believe the present jury system is a joke because of ignorant people that serve on those juries.

How many people do you know that actually understand that the jury (the people) has the last word on the validity of a law? Or that it is the jury that has the final check on bad legislation?

Yes, we have judges that tell a jury to judge only on the facts of a case and not the merit of the law. This is wrong.

It is also wrong for the lawyers to pre-screen a jury. Another name for it would be stacking the deck.

Educated jurors would make a HUGE difference.

That is the drive of this thread.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
I've wondered recently if anybody has tried an appeal anytime on the basis of the jury wasn't made up of his peers. I have never been called for duty, but talking with people who have it seems like the only people who get selected (around here) are couch inhabiting Oprah watchers. Anyone (talking generalities here obviously) who is a contributing member of society has no chance to get on them. I've been told that if you are a business owner, hold an advanced degree, hold any type of technical degree, or seem fairly intelligent that you are almost assured of being dismissed the first day there. If that is the case, who is left (OJ jury comes to mind, "You haven't heard anything about this?", "Nope", "Been living in a cave for the past year?")? Back to the original thought. If these people have no idea of what you have gone through to get to where you are in life are they really your peers?
 
The biggest problem with the jury system is voir dire (vwah-dehr) or jury selection. In britain, they say "You twelve, sit there" and that's it. Here, we have lawyers who want to slant the jury to their side (defense and prosecution) and we have whole research companies dedicated to nothing but vir dire.

We need to get rid of the voir dire system and go back to the original system.

The second biggest problem we have with the jury system, which is actually a justice system failure, is ignoring the Constitutional obligation to hold trials in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed "for the protection of the accused". What that is actually for goes back to point one wherein the defense wants to "get the Hell out of Dodge" so he has a better chance of winning. This was accomplished through the argument of "pre-tril publicity".

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Jim,

What is "voir dire"? And did you mean to say, "pre-trial publicity?

I know that the jury selection is bogus.

I talked to a guy once that said that to be judged by your peers means people that are in your age group and simular employment status.

I don't think so.

Do you have any suggestions on how to change this?

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
I've been in the jury pool several times now, but have never been called. Why? Besides the obvious demographic (middle-aged white male), there's the screening questions. In one case, two cops nailed a suspect in possession of cocaine. The suspect's attorney asked if I would be more inclined to believe the officers or the defendant. Huh? Needless to say, I didn't sit on that jury either.

Dick
 
It seems to me that there does not seem to be much power left in the ballot box. Aren't our choices are limited by those we do not control?

I'm fairly ignorant about the election system, so maybe there is more hope in it than I feel there is...

Anyway, even if we have a hope at the ballot box I woke up last night at 3am and could not go back to sleep until I'd committed the thoughts running through my head to paper.

Please give me your feedback.

Would it be possible to obtain a list of registered voters (names and mailing addresses) through the Freedom of Information Act?

And with that list send a postcard directing them to internet sites that inform them about their duty as potential jurors?

I was thinking that Oleg (are you there?) could use his talents of visionry to create a visually impacting card with a caption such as:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The laws you support today may be used against you tomorrow. Jury duty. Get Informed![/quote]

Then the www.fija.com web site (with their permission) and maybe an e-mail address for questions.

Your feedback, please!

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
Here in CA the courts are now adding more alternate juriors. So that if, as in one case here, any of the juriors do not vote the way the judge wants, they can then replace those juriors with ones who will vote 'Correctly'. Seems that jury nullification is alive and well in CA, but the courts are fighting back.

Thanks for the links... will be reading them.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John/az2:

Would it be possible to obtain a list of registered voters (names and mailing addresses) through the Freedom of Information Act?[/quote]

John, You're in Az, and you haven't heard of Ernie Hancock's stunt to post the names and addresses of all eligible voters on the LP website?

Also, read Vin Suprynowicz's book, Send in the Waco Killers. There's an entire chapter devoted to voir dire.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cruiserman:
John, You're in Az, and you haven't heard of Ernie Hancock's stunt to post the names and addresses of all eligible voters on the LP website?

Also, read Vin Suprynowicz's book, Send in the Waco Killers. There's an entire chapter devoted to voir dire.
[/quote]

Cruiserman,

I have not heard of Ernie Hancock. I don't watch the news, or read the paper.

Could you give me a URL for the list? I was at www.lp.org, but found nothing there.

I will check out Vin's book. Thanks!


------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John/az2:
Cruiserman,

I have not heard of Ernie Hancock. I don't watch the news, or read the paper.

Could you give me a URL for the list? I was at www.lp.org, but found nothing there.

I will check out Vin's book. Thanks!


[/quote]

Hancock ended up NOT posting the list. There were 2 articles on it in the AZ Repugnant. Az LP politics are a joke.
 
Can't a judge "set aside" the jury verdict of guilty and set the person free???
I will never be on a jury. Even if I had the time and tried. I was injured "couldn't work" so I participated in a Practice jury for a major $$$ case. There was SO many holes in the plantiffs arguments that I made a list. I was told not to worry the jury they pick will not have ANY knowledge of Semi-trucks and how they work and what the driver is REQUIRED to do before he hits the road. "I have a CDL Class A" The facts don't matter it is picking the right jury that matters.
How many "good" people have the time to be on a jury??? It is a sacrafice. You may lose a promotion or maybe even have a better chance of being laid off.
 
So back to one of the original questions:

Can the FOIA be used to obtain a list of registered voters?

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
Yes. Go to your county clerk's office, and request it. Anybody can get this list, and a really good thing is that in many places they publish phone numbers (yes even unlisted #'s) on this document. I live in a small county, and my list was about 110 pages long. Enjoy your search.
 
Thanks, Kjm!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000304_xnfoj_breastfeed.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Breast-feeding mom avoids jail
Court: Report for jury duty
in one year, ready or not

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A mother who was threatened with jail time because she would not leave her breast-feeding child to serve on a jury has had her case dismissed on the condition that she report for jury duty after the child is weaned -- although the judge hedged on this agreement one day after it was made.
The day after her March 1st "status conference," during which prosecutors requested the dismissal, Siri Wright of Idaho was told by Trial Court Administrator John Traylor to schedule a date when Wright would be available for jury duty.

Wright, whose husband noted Traylor "sounded like someone tortured him" to make the call, explained she cannot predict when her daughter will stop nursing and so cannot set a date. Traylor then set a date for her -- March 1, 2001.

By law, mothers are to be excused from jury duty in Idaho while they are nursing.

Before their children were born, Wright and her husband Chris decided to practice a form of natural breast-feeding, known in some circles as "ecological breast-feeding," which allows a child to wean himself. The practice, though not uncommon, is not popular in some circles that regard the practice of breast-feeding toddlers disturbing.
Siri Wright and her children

The couple's daughter is now just over two years old and still nursing -- normal for children who wean themselves. In fact, children raised using ecological breast-feeding have nursed up to four and five years of age.

Doctors and organizations that advocate ecological breast-feeding stress togetherness of mother and child. Even separations of one hour are discouraged.

Prosecutors for Wright's case told the press after the conference that, if the mother had only explained her situation, legal proceedings would have been avoided.

But Wright says she did relate her situation to Jury Commissioner Marji Shepherd, who nevertheless filed criminal contempt charges against the mother for not leaving her children in another's care.

Wright's trial without a jury was set for March 13, though it has now been dismissed, and a status conference was held Wednesday. Wright was told by Judge Joel D. Horton she may bring her daughter, Britta, to court for the conference, but changed his mind minutes before proceedings began.

Idaho Statesman reporter Tim Jackson was at the courthouse when Wright and Britta were separated.

"Wednesday's 10-minute hearing was marked by continual screams of protest from outside the courtroom from Wright's daughter who didn't like it when Wright placed her child in the arms of friend Tonya Skaggs while Wright appeared before Horton," wrote Jackson.

"Unable to converse over the screaming at his courtroom door as more than a dozen jail inmates sat waiting for the judge to take up their cases, Horton told a bailiff to have Skaggs and Britta moved far enough across the courthouse foyer so that the noise wouldn't interfere with his court reporter's ability to record the proceedings," Jackson continued.

While in the conference, Horton scolded Wright for the publicity her case generated and expressed outrage at the attempts of the public to influence a judge's decision.

When Wright's trial was scheduled, she emailed a letter relating her circumstances to six of her friends. One of the recipients posted what the judge later referred to as the "inflammatory letter" on several Internet parenting bulletin boards, leading eventually to last Tuesday's story in WorldNetDaily and the resultant outpouring of public support for Wright.

"We thought he had already made his decision," said Wright's husband, Chris. "People took it upon themselves to write him."

At the behest of his wife, Chris Wright told WorldNetDaily, "Had [the judge] not already made up his mind, he wouldn't have been so mad the case had been dismissed. He told Siri that she didn't understand the workings of a courtroom and that he does this sort of thing every day and that she doesn't have any understanding of that. He was so angry."

"I don't think an unmarried man without kids should be making decisions affecting the family," Chris Wright continued. "He went back on his agreement that Britta could be in there and had her screaming out there in the hall. And he went back on his agreement the next day when he had Traylor call."

Chris Wright said the case has "turned our life upside down. Our kids are our priority. We try to give them a free and easy life -- they're kids. This case is affecting them. Britta cries a lot more. She clings to Siri a lot more."

The father believes Traylor's phone call is a sign their case is not really over.

"It's more of the same," he said. "It's not improving -- they're coming up with different strategies."

Wright also expressed his frustration that the case dismissal is reminiscent of court actions last year. A local Boise newspaper publicized the case, which prompted Horton to call the case a "mistake," and that the jury commission would review its procedures.

However, once publicity died down, said Wright, the case persisted, resulting in contempt charges. The couple believes the same thing will occur next year when Mrs. Wright receives her March 2001 summons, as scheduled yesterday by Traylor.

"It's almost entrapment," Chris Wright said in reference to the upcoming summons. "Their tactics make me so angry. This is deja vu."

"The system in Idaho -- instead of identifying a mistake or something that needs to be looked at, will lie and cheat and do whatever they need to to win," he said.

He added, "There are some policies down at the jury commission that haven't been changed, they haven't been updated in a long time. This law came out two years ago. These policies need to be changed to uphold the law. By enforcing their old policies, they are breaking the law. Their policy is to give a couple of postponements and then turn it over to the judge, which means [Shepherd] files a complaint for contempt. She's putting a time limit on nursing."

The couple also related their frustration with the media for taking Shepherd at her word rather than checking her statements against recorded facts.

WorldNetDaily was told by Shepherd that Wright did not file doctor's notes with the court indicating the mother was breast-feeding. WND obtained a copy of two such notes, dated one year apart, and a copy of the affidavit filed by Shepherd in which the jury commissioner admits she was given the documents.

"Other reporters took her at her word because they are the 'powers that be,'" said Chris Wright. "Idaho does not have a lot of laws in place, but they're not following the laws that are in there."

WND contacted Traylor's office, but was told to submit all questions in writing to the court's postal address.
[/quote]

(emphasis mine)

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
Let me start by saying that I am a huge supporter of FIJ's and, having little/no faith in the ballot box, believe it to be our only hope short of combat.

I heard an arguement against it once that I couldn't very well respond to. I would like to get ideas from you guys as well as make you aware of this anti point so you won't be caught off guard.

Here it is: Jury nullification can, and has been, abused. Take for example the "pre-enlightened" South-- White boy drags a black guy behind his pick-up-- kills him-- jury of his peers lets him off because BillyJimBob is a good guy and laws against murder don't really apply here-- afterall,Billy thought his african-american friend was having FUN until he tripped and fell.

I'm sure you can think of other (better?)examples of potential for abuse and hopefully even BETTER arguements FOR jury nullification.
 
I don't quite understand the force of your friend's objection, Jordan.

Is it that in a system in which a juror is allowed, in effect, a veto over the enforcement of a law at his/her abuse will occur?

Well, I suppose it will. Then again, a system in which we have professional judges, people with the powers to admit or reject evidence at their sole discretion, would be subject to abuse. Why, someone might bribe that judge! And you know what, that has happened!

What about a system in which we have state-paid professionals with a de facto monopoly on the apprehension of criminals and the investigation of crimes? Why, such a system could lead to abuse! A professional "police force", if I might coin a term, would create a class of individuals who might abuse their authority. Oh yeah, we do have such a system. And-- sad to say-- on some occasions abuse happens.

What does any of this show? Is it some kind of discovery that if a person has power, in virtue of some institutional or occupational role, it is possible for that person to abuse it? But what is that possibility supposed to show? That jurors shouldn't be permitted latitude in decision making? Then maybe a similar argument shows that judges, police, politicians, teachers, or anyone else shouldn't be entitled to make decisions either. We wouldn't want abuse to occur, after all.

What is going on in your friend's mind is, I think, a familiar statist argument. It usually runs like this. Someone proposes that ordinary citizens have, or ought to have, some power or libery they're not usually taken to have. The response: 'Goodness, we couldn't let ordinary people just _decide_ to do x or y for whatever reason they wanted!! Think of what might happen! What about the guy who would do x for bad reasons? Why in fact just the other day a man did x for a bad reason, and it was all over the papers! No way do I support a right to x!" But of course if state officials are allowed the right to x, and in fact the right to x not subject to publicity or the direct control of ordinary citizens, that's fine. A relief in fact! Why the nobility are so much wiser than ourselves, so much purer! Of course the right to x is far too dangerous to be entrusted widely, but in state hands it's outright beneficial.

When it comes to jury trials the ability of ordinary citizens to judge whether the prosecution of a crime accords not just with the law as it exists, but with the conception of justice on which the law must be based, is as important a check on state power in our system as any other. It's more important than an executive veto, or judicial review. It permits ordinary people, those with the most vivid experience of the _application_ of the law to citizens, to be arbiters of its acceptability. If the law says that a man should be imprisoned for publishing true statements critical of the government-- and the law once did-- citizens are permitted to say, "no!". And citizens did just that in early 18th century America under British rule, ignoring judicial instructions. If the law says that someone helping another to escape from slavery ought to be imprisoned-- and the law once did say exactly that-- citizens can say, "No!" And they did just that, in the antebellum northern states. If the law says that people who distill beer in their bathtub should go to jail-- and the law once did and still does-- citizens can say "no" to that too. And they did that as well, in America under prohibition. If the law wasn't set up so that juries had this power? Well, the outlook for liberty now isn't so hot, but I'll take this country to THAT one any day.

Indeed, if we took the role of jurors more seriously instead of allowing the government to intimidate jurors into voting the way it wants them to we could solve a lot more problems right now. The present "war on drugs" would be over and done with inside of a year. Forget about "possession of assault rifles" or any other sh*t of that sort, too. This possibility we weigh against the fact of some abuse, and find that _abuse_ wins the day and the power of juries is to be restricted? Let's just turn all of the power over to the government then and be done with it.

Now let me add that I don't think that jurors can just disregard the law at a whim. The fact that there is a law prohibiting such and such must be taken very seriously. The presumption should be that the refinement of the law will take place in the judicial branch and not in the jury box. But this presumption, while strong, is defeasible. In cases where the government has far overreached its legitimate authority a juror should vote to acquit. It's that simple.

If we don't allow jurors this role, then what are they for? To decide this mythical question of the "matters of fact" as opposed to "matters of law"? We need the judgment of the ordinary person just to weigh whether blood in the living room is evidence of crime in the basement? Whether DNA evidence provides strong evidence of someone having been at a crime scene? Please. If we're not going to permit juries to exercise their judgment over both the law and the facts, subject to the presumption above, let's get rid of juries altogether. That juries might "abuse" their power and so have to be limited to a rubber stamp role is just so much boot-licking state worship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top