What authorizes judges to exercise such power...

J

John/az2

New member
What allows judges (both State and Federal) to "disallow" evidence?

This question was raised for me at first when I heard that a judge here in Arizona told the defending attorney that he could NOT use the 2nd Amendment as a defense. And it was given more life after reading Vin's article about the war on drugs posted by Deanf.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27692

Who authorized them with this amount of power, and is it according to our guiding document the Constitution?

And why is it that a judge can over-rule the decision of the jury?


------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
This practice has been around since at least the late '60s or early '70s. It became common practice during the Vietnam war to limit the defenses that a defendant could use to keep draft dodgers and war protesters from using the court as a public forum, or for that matter - winning their case by jury nullification.
 
I can think of one type of situation where this sorta makes sense: when you're trying to make a point of law that's already been established against you by a higher court.

Example that works against us: if you're suing to void a gun control law based on "pure second amendment individual right" grounds in the 9th Circuit (basically US west coast, plus HI and AK) you're hosed - the 9th ruled the 2A a "collective right" long ago.

Example that works FOR us: in my equal protection CCW suit (round two coming soon) against my Sheriff in CA, the same 9th ruled that there's an equal protection element in CCW, and that I can compare my treatment versus the treatment of the various cronies that scored the permit. So if I raise evidence related to the treatment of these other guys who were favored, the judge can't chuck it even if he wants to. See also Guillory vs. Gates: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/guillory.html

Jim
 
There power is not unlimited... If they disallow evidence in a trial and as a result you are convicted you do have the right of appeal. The appeals court can order a retrial due to the fact that the judge in the case suppressed certain evidence which was necessary for the defense.

If our courts did not suppress a lot of evidence, a trail could take years to wade through everything. It's a balancing act that every judge has to face.



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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
If the question or issue has previously been ruled upon or decided by a higher court the lower courts are required to follow the same rules in a similar case.

As Justice Jackson of the Supreme COurt said years ago, "We're not final because we are right. We are right because we are final."
 
Well, heck, the person ought to be allowed to present the defense, and then the prosecution could simply say, "The Supreme court has already ruled that defense invalid."

Of course, in the Peter McWilliams case, the judge ruled out a defense, medical necessity, which the high court had ruled WAS valid.

Roybean: As those of us who DON'T believe that "might makes right" would say, the Supreme court isn't right because they're final; They're just final.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited June 25, 2000).]
 
From what I have seen the judge will throw evidence out for 2 reasons . He does not like it Personally !!! Or he thinks it does not help to determine who or what is right . The judge can do almost anything they want to . It is the appeals process that can overturn his or her ruling . A good lawyer knows the law . A great lawyer knows the judge . Not so much as an acquaintance but how they rule and like or dislike some things .
As far as an appeal is concerned when you think the judge is wrong . GOT MONEY ???
As far as rulings by higher courts . You are not always home free . The judge must rule whether this case is similar . If they think there is even a slight diff they can hear the case . Some judges do this so they can make a statement on something . If a judge thinks it's a "hot potato" they just say it's the same and it's over .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
The problem is with the Legislative branch. They have the authority to impeach judges, and they are loathe to exercise that authority. Judges should be impeached with regularity. Especially Federal Judges who cannot be voted out of office.
I believe that when you sit in the Jury box, you are the supreme judge of the case before you. You say whatever you have to to get on that Jury short of purjuring yourself. I would never lie to get on a Jury, but I will not volunteer evidence which could have me tossed off. The reasoning being that one person can make a difference. Would you convict that deacon guy who shot his grand daughters captors in order to rescue her? What if the judge said you had to? I'm sorry, but I couldn't, but I don't want to leave that mans fate in the hands of 11 other Rosie-watchin', Enquirer readin', socialist, spineless "citizens". It is my DUTY and my Responsibility to sit on that Jury, and to vote according to my conscience. When the judge gives me instructions to vote one way or another, then I will have to disregard that too. Sometimes, one man standing on principles will lead six more who were afraid to stand up, and maybe be able to save someone from being screwed by the system.
 
Congressional cowardice. In the absense of Congress making or changing a law (see: U.S. Constitution), judges (esp. activist Liberals) have happily jumped into the process to make laws by decree.

Congress could end this at once but hasn't the guts.
 
Most states have codified their laws into "the Penal Code," "the Elections Code," the Civil Code," etc. Among these is "the Evidence Code," under which most states, and the Feds, allow judges to disallow evidence if, in their sole opinion, it is irrelevant, immaterial, repetitive, prejudicial, incompetent, etc.

The problem is that these discretionary decisions are rarely reveresed on appeal. Smart lawyers will make every attempt to outmaneuver such rulings, either by coming as close to contempt of court as possible without going over the line (always bring a toothbrush), or by tricking the other attorney into "opening the door" for the evidence to come in.

Sorry about all the quotations marks. And I don't mean to contest any opinions stated above. It is far too much power to be able to deny the accused the opportunity to prevent his/her best defense.

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
The power for the supreme court to rule a law constitutional or not (Judicial Review) was 'taken' by the court. No where in the US Constitution is that power enumerated OR implied.

I may have been implied by Madison's/Randolph's Virgina Plan, but was not in the final draft.

madison46
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John/az2:
What allows judges (both State and Federal) to "disallow" evidence?

This question was raised for me at first when I heard that a judge here in Arizona told the defending attorney that he could NOT use the 2nd Amendment as a defense. And it was given more life after reading Vin's article about the war on drugs posted by Deanf.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27692

Who authorized them with this amount of power, and is it according to our guiding document the Constitution?

And why is it that a judge can over-rule the decision of the jury?


[/quote]



[This message has been edited by madison46 (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top