tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post893562314549432232..comments2024-03-29T07:07:32.980-05:00Comments on Althouse: "In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a unanimous jury – but that defendants in state trials do not have such a right."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50414775583977430232020-04-21T21:20:38.169-05:002020-04-21T21:20:38.169-05:00Over the last 10-15 years I have become very much ...Over the last 10-15 years I have become very much less "let them swing" inclined. <br /><br />The govt has proven themselves corrupt, and we the people need 100% of the protections enumerated. <br />The lacrosse players accused of rape? <br />Richard Jewell<br />Ruby Ridge<br />Waco. <br />I've forgot a bunch, because I'm so distracted by Obama weaponizing the IRS, CIA, DoJ, State Dept, etal. <br /><br />In short the Crime and Justice system is rotten through out, From beat cops, to Detectives, and Captains, and Commissioners. DA's and their stable of prosecutors, crooked. <br /><br />Attorney General of the United States? Director of the FBI, hell, the entire 7th floor of the FBI, and a good chunk of the DoJ, consider themselves the law, but not subject to it.<br /><br />iowan2https://www.blogger.com/profile/14716635412314020236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30003874074058264002020-04-21T20:39:06.268-05:002020-04-21T20:39:06.268-05:00"Reasonable doubt at a reasonable price"..."Reasonable doubt at a reasonable price" attorney ad.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40949357220127705052020-04-21T20:38:21.405-05:002020-04-21T20:38:21.405-05:00Ten out of twelve gets rid of the reasonable doubt...Ten out of twelve gets rid of the reasonable doubt thing.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62361116011979200762020-04-21T20:09:31.560-05:002020-04-21T20:09:31.560-05:00It's so cute the way they just make up stuff.
...<i>It's so cute the way they just make up stuff.</i><br /><br />You know there's actually a history of the jury trial, right? It's a historical right dating back to Magna Carta. It's always been 12 people, and it's always needed to be unanimous. <br /><br />It's the people who want to minimize the jury trial that are <i>making up stuff.</i><br /><br />The Supreme Court, by the way, let a man (Nathaniel Woods) be executed on the basis of a 10-2 jury decision. Just a month ago that happened. You'd think they would have halted the execution. But they didn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41605844946085184342020-04-21T20:06:47.418-05:002020-04-21T20:06:47.418-05:00Agree that the text does not say anything about un...<i>Agree that the text does not say anything about unanimity. But maybe that would have been redundant, if, at the time, they all understood a jury conviction had to be unanimous for a serious crime.</i><br /><br />That's possible, yet the 7th Amendment explicitly refers to common law: "... than according to the rules of the common law."Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45726545135629771372020-04-21T19:17:15.541-05:002020-04-21T19:17:15.541-05:00US military Courts Martial only require 2/3 majori...US military Courts Martial only require 2/3 majority for a guilty verdict, except for a death penalty case. Then a unanimous vote is required. I don't remember if a military verdict can be appealed to the Supreme Court or not.ken in txhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345764031059905578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5281053336726241222020-04-21T18:57:04.968-05:002020-04-21T18:57:04.968-05:00holus bolus
I thought those were nonsense words ...holus bolus<br /><br /><br />I thought those were nonsense words that Robert Louis Stevenson invented in Treasure Island. What does that mean?Nichevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591460407621898458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65956371513819078972020-04-21T18:52:46.940-05:002020-04-21T18:52:46.940-05:00"Why did Oregon have no minorities in the 193..."Why did Oregon have no minorities in the 1930s? Look up the Wikipedia entry entitled "Oregon black exclusion laws." The law was finally repealed in 1926. The repeal was put to the voters of Oregon and passed by 62%. So 38% of the good people of Oregon, in 1926, still wanted an all-white Oregon. Wonder if that might be why there were no minorities in Oregon? And I wonder if a populace with that mind set might have favored less than unanimous verdicts, just in case?"<br /><br />Its amazing how race crazies write stuff that makes zero sense. Its hard to respond. So, in 1926 Oregon *repealed* a race exclusion law and therefore Oregon's 1930s law allowing non-unanimous juries was an attack on blacks. <br /><br />What fucking sense does that make. Here are the facts:<br /><br />KKK activity in Oregon in the 1930s? Zero<br />Government mandated black Segregation in Oregon in the 1930s? Zero<br />Blacks in Oregon in the 1930s? Almost None.<br /><br />So why the fuck would Oregon's Primary motive for non-unanimous juries have anything to do with hating black folks? Judas fucking Priest!rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16113380730678159802020-04-21T18:47:59.794-05:002020-04-21T18:47:59.794-05:00Has anyone read the 10th Amendment to the Supreme ...<b>Has anyone read the 10th Amendment to the Supreme Court?</b><br /><br />This is exactly like the Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on first"<br /><br />Question: "What about the 10th amendment?<br /> Answer : (in unison) "14th Amendment!"iowan2https://www.blogger.com/profile/14716635412314020236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3688449418199960292020-04-21T18:25:21.395-05:002020-04-21T18:25:21.395-05:00Kagan was so intent on preserving Roe v. Wade that...Kagan was so intent on preserving <i>Roe v. Wade</i> that she was willing to let this poor schmuck rot in prison. Collateral damage. Even Ginsburg couldn't bring herself to that.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11386165669907559416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64125304428706012382020-04-21T18:05:11.495-05:002020-04-21T18:05:11.495-05:00Instead of banning split jury decisions, we ought ...Instead of banning split jury decisions, we ought to have the old Scottish verdict of not proven guilty. Innocent, guilty or not proven. Another thing is the prosecutor should not be allowed to bring charges above those that were offered in a plea bargain deal. And that upon conviction, the convict be required to serve the balance of any prior convictions consecutively with the new conviction. That's incentive enough to get the frequent flier criminals to take a plea bargain while not coercing other accused into taking a plea deal because of the fear of going away for forever and a day.cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47505808276820435552020-04-21T17:29:25.125-05:002020-04-21T17:29:25.125-05:00"The US Constitution clearly doesn't requ..."The US Constitution clearly doesn't require unanimous jury decisions either, or else the authors would have said so."<br /><br />Agree that the text does not say anything about unanimity. But maybe that would have been redundant, if, at the time, they all understood a jury conviction had to be unanimous for a serious crime.BarrySanders20https://www.blogger.com/profile/01789985176386759263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17556896564912381522020-04-21T16:13:52.039-05:002020-04-21T16:13:52.039-05:00Has anyone read the 10th Amendment to the Supreme ...Has anyone read the 10th Amendment to the Supreme Court?alanc709https://www.blogger.com/profile/17431953668013394966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54437189397795042022020-04-21T16:12:41.341-05:002020-04-21T16:12:41.341-05:00I have a personal interest in this as I sat on a j...I have a personal interest in this as I sat on a jury in Louisiana when a man was tried for manslaughter/second degree murder. I feel justice was turned on it's head in that case. The defendant, a young man had a court ordered attorney who was all but missing during the trial. The assistant district attorney carried a broken baseball bat that had no part in the crime in his hand when speaking to the jury. As it happened the juror who became the foreman told us, the other jurors,he had lived next door to the young man who died in a shootout; that in itself should have stopped the trial completely, it didn't. <br /><br />There were two holdouts, me and another woman, who was finally convinced to give in on a Friday afternoon because she was leaving town for the weekend. Her weekend over a young man's life. <br /> <br />The young man who was eventually convicted of second degree murder, life in Angola, had the scars on his body the person who died had inflicted. If that young man is still alive, he was 20 at the time, 1985, I hope this will get him out of prison. <br />If you have heard of the Louisiana legal system being corrupt, trust me you were not mislead.<br /><br />I no longer live in Louisiana, but I will never forget that experience. <br />Rockport Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08472979749733378317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5730714610748955582020-04-21T16:02:50.244-05:002020-04-21T16:02:50.244-05:00Mark Jones re: me saying getting 100% consensus o...Mark Jones re: me saying getting 100% consensus on a jury is going to be hard.<br /><br /><i> If the government starts having real trouble getting convictions on the countless vague, nitpicking, or unknown laws we labor under daily, </i><br /><br />Good point. Maybe if it IS hard and they have to work to get a conviction, we will stop with bringing up frivolous charges for anything and everything. Ham Sandwich Nation: when everything is a crime.<br /><br />Next...get rid of plea bargaining where people trade away their rights and freedom under pressure without a trial. Turning and flipping people like pancakes.Dust Bunny Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15115422951538885247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67388795179436168272020-04-21T15:32:10.459-05:002020-04-21T15:32:10.459-05:00Compare the American jury system to the way people...Compare the American jury system to the way people behave on twitter and social media. Thought crimes are identified and resolved with something like the old English "hue and cry." An aggrieved individual publicly calls for a posse to hunt down and thrash a suspected thought criminal. The thought criminal get "cancelled."<br /><br />There is no innocent until proven guilty, no careful examination or cross-examination...Spiroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12774111543893179059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69389537759116432412020-04-21T15:28:55.787-05:002020-04-21T15:28:55.787-05:00the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the...<i>the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the territorial rights of the Maoris, these rules have obtained, at any rate in theory, according to the procedure and mode of trial evolved by the English Common Law.</i><br /><br />It's nice that Winston agrees with my assessments of Australia, NZ, etc.<br />Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38328546215301649192020-04-21T15:26:38.739-05:002020-04-21T15:26:38.739-05:00The British, today, don't require it, and they...<i>The British, today, don't require it, and they are closer to the common law than the US was.</i><br /><br />The US Constitution clearly doesn't require unanimous jury decisions either, or else the authors would have said so; and I'd wager that Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and Wales are all closer to English common law than the rebellious U.S. is, or was.<br /><br /><i>Certain individuals commit massive numbers of these crimes and most of these people are eventually caught.</i><br /><br />A lot of them are caught over and over again.Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89289621493836501102020-04-21T14:13:37.565-05:002020-04-21T14:13:37.565-05:00This is the sixth amendment but what about the sev...This is the sixth amendment but what about the seventh? Will unanimity also be required for juries in civil trials?Left Bank of the Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04494310302328322830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85692172015374148052020-04-21T14:10:58.759-05:002020-04-21T14:10:58.759-05:00Gahrie, yes I'm aware that most cases are plea...Gahrie, yes I'm aware that most cases are plea-bargained down to lesser charges. It's an easy win for the government, which doesn't have to risk a jury trial, and too often an inevitable defeat for the defendant, who can plead guilty (whether he is or not) so as not to go bankrupt trying to defend himself.<br /><br />I've read that plea-bargains are illegal in a lot of other countries precisely because of the power imbalance. I think that would be a good rule here. Force the government to triage which cases it REALLY wants to pursue.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01994430001543710190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39477193239437881122020-04-21T14:01:29.771-05:002020-04-21T14:01:29.771-05:00"The vast majority of criminals in the United..."The vast majority of criminals in the United States go uncaught and unpunished."<br /><br />The vast majority of crimes go uncaught. Certain individuals commit massive numbers of these crimes and most of these people are eventually caught.BarrySanders20https://www.blogger.com/profile/01789985176386759263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29796803595477077712020-04-21T13:58:13.944-05:002020-04-21T13:58:13.944-05:00Kavanaugh dwells on all the decions ignoring state...Kavanaugh dwells on all the decions ignoring state decisis including Brown, which he calls the most important and greatest Supreme Court decision. I thought Marbury was the most important Supreme Court decision.Readeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034960201047882549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27814931037360614092020-04-21T13:43:55.929-05:002020-04-21T13:43:55.929-05:00Count me with the trads on this one. That the cou...Count me with the trads on this one. That the court system is FUBAR already is no reason to throw another concession to the eager beaver prosecutors of the world.<br /><br />I've never made it to an actual jury, though I've been called to the pool several times for state and federal duty. If I ever do serve, you're fucking right I want the MAXIMUM POWER that I have to influence the outcome.<br /><br />That's more meaningful to me than the farcical ceremony of voting in elections, which I participate in for historical and antiquarian purposes only, with no expectation whatever that my preference will win.<br /><br />Narr<br />I'm beginning to think I paid too much for the Voter's Sash and Tiara setNarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14043247682000851606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7449719459149395922020-04-21T13:26:13.988-05:002020-04-21T13:26:13.988-05:00The Oregon case that led to their non-unanimous ju...<a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2017/09/inside_the_1933_murder_trial_t.html" rel="nofollow">The Oregon case</a> that led to their non-unanimous jury law is a great read - mobsters, speakeasys, an unfaithful gun moll, a "ride in the country" for the guy who bucked the mob, and (importantly) jury tampering.<br /><br />Looks to me that the passage of that law was a reaction to mob influence on juries. The mobsters involved were Jewish and Catholic so I guess you could call it racist if you really want to.<br /><br />Favorite part:<br /><br />"During the trial, one of the jurors, a Spanish-American War veteran, committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart near his home." After that, another juror would not agree to a murder conviction and they went with manslaughter and three years in the hooosegow.Rabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02612585516401001803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42111340755772007952020-04-21T13:22:20.814-05:002020-04-21T13:22:20.814-05:00If the government starts having real trouble getti...<i>If the government starts having real trouble getting convictions on the countless vague, nitpicking, or unknown laws we labor under daily, that's a good thing. Perhaps it will dissuade them from bringing some of those cases. I *want* the government to have to work hard to get a conviction.</i><br /><br />Actually all it does is give the government further reason to plea bargain away a defendant's right to trial. The vast majority of criminal cases are settled before trial. our court system is drowning under the number of cases it does try.<br /><br />Did you know that in 2018 only 63% of murder/manslaughter cases were cleared? (Cleared means someone was arrested, or that the police know who did it, but can't arrest them for some reason)<br /><br />You know what is more interesting? That percentage is higher than every other form of crime. Aggravated assault came in second at 52%. All other crimes are less than 50%. The vast majority of criminals in the United States go uncaught and unpunished.Gahriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795449308207016641noreply@blogger.com