Time: Sat May 24 08:38:26 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA16983; Sat, 24 May 1997 07:59:00 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15434; Sat, 24 May 1997 07:58:54 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 08:36:28 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Comments on Second Circuit Appellate Decision (fwd) >Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 08:36:23 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project <jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com> >Subject: Comments on Second Circuit Appellate Decision >To: Jury Rights Project <jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com> > >Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:55:06 -0800 >From: Vin Suprynowicz <Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com> > >Re: New York Times: > Court Attacks Practice of Acquittals as Social Protest (5/21/97) > >Interesting dateline. I presume the justices, being New Yorkers, will next >move to posthumously overturn the token fine in the John Peter Zenger case, >digging up the body of the 18th Century New York printer and hanging the >mouldering remains from the nearest lamppost so all our history books can >be rewritten to report that the jury was NOT allowed any choice but to >punish Zenger for printing inconvenient truths about the king. > >Then, given that all those northern juries were obviously wrong to refuse >to bring in convictions in "runaway slave" cases in the 1850s, and given >the likelihood that those slaves would have been whipped to death if >returned to their Southern masters, I presume Judge Jose Cabranes and the >other New York justices will now order all the descendants of those runaway >slaves currently within their jurisdiction to be rounded up ... and put to >death? After all, their ancestors should never have been allowed to live >to bear children, since those juries "had no right to ignore the evidence >or law in a case and instead impose their own values to acquit or convict a >defendant," actions which constitute "a violation of a juror's sworn duty >to follow the law as instructed by the court." > >Review the case in question. The trial judge found a sole black juror >refusing to convict because he believed the drug defendants had "a right to >deal drugs." That is plainly true, on its face. The constitution grants the >government NO power to prevent consensual commerce in products which the >buyer wishes to use for self-medication ... medical liberty is clearly >protected by the Ninth Amendment, and no law passed in violation of that or >any other part of the Bill of Rights can be held to EVER have been valid >(under the wise precedent of Marbury vs. Madison.) > >Yet the trial judge -- who is MORE responsible to know and defend the >Constitution than the average juror -- fired the recalcitrant juror, and >allowed the remaining jurors to convict under the unconstitutional statute, >11-0. > >This is substantively no different than allowing an 11-1 conviction. Do I >hear 9-3? 7-5? The appeals court now orders a new trial ... a similar >result to the proper original finding of a hung jury. > >So far so good. But why is the trial judge not stripped of his robes and >banned from the bench for life? He meddled in the jury room, and dismissed >a jury for voting "the wrong way." What will he try the next time, >stationing 12 armed bailiffs, one behind each chair in the jury room, >noisily loading and cocking their revolvers whenever anyone appears ready >to vote "Not guilty?" > >The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about >this arrogant, elitist trend should be police officers. So far, when >advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury >trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the >average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will >remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questoning that >he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that >suspect is far more likely to figure, "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well >take one lying government bureaucrat with me. I wish it were a senator or a >judge or the commissioner of the IRS, but you have to take what God deals >you in this life, so I guess this poor cop's number just came up." > >When those cops start dying, I hope the memorial wreaths will be laid on >the doorsteps of jury-hating Judges Jose Cabranes, Edward Lumbard, and >Joseph McLaughlin. > >-- V.S. > >Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com > >Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Re-distributed by the: > Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, > send email with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title. >Donations are requested for the court appeals to overturn the conviction >of former juror Laura Kriho, convicted of contempt of court for failing to >volunteer information about her political beliefs during jury selection: > -- Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund -- > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, Colo. 80134 > Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail