tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post7890151757183557950..comments2024-03-16T08:04:53.086-05:00Comments on Dredd Blog: Why Trial By Jury?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-68445580633783851502009-01-25T22:54:00.000-06:002009-01-25T22:54:00.000-06:00socrates,Yep, there is "gerrymandering" of juries ...socrates,<BR/><BR/>Yep, there is "gerrymandering" of juries too ... in any human system there will be an attempt to subvert the system.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately we can limit that to a case by case basis if we can keep the system running reasonably.<BR/><BR/>And yes, the accused can waive the jury trial and choose to have a judge only trial. And yes, sometimes that is best.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15673418865926403671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-8241733973167039972009-01-25T22:38:00.000-06:002009-01-25T22:38:00.000-06:00Despite the overall strong arguments given for jur...Despite the overall strong arguments given for jury panels, I think it's good to have the choice of judge and jury. If you can get a good judge, then you don't have to worry as much about those everyday people getting that "expert" testimony wrong.<BR/><BR/>It also seems that lawyers only get a limited amount of panel nominees to toss out. If by chance, the defendant gets mostly a slanted jury pool, and that is quite possible depending on location, the chances of a fair shake diminish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-19117725272489033922009-01-25T21:37:00.000-06:002009-01-25T21:37:00.000-06:00For those interested in how juries historically wo...For those interested in how juries historically worked, please see http://fija.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-65351005669287950622009-01-25T19:45:00.000-06:002009-01-25T19:45:00.000-06:00This is a subject matter that causes mysterious an...This is a subject matter that causes mysterious and/or unexpected aliances between the left and the right. <BR/><BR/>In one example case, <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-478" REL="nofollow">Apprendi v New Jersey</A>, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we find Justice Scalia voting with most of the 'liberals'.<BR/><BR/>To wit: "<I>Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined as to Parts I and II. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined</I>"<BR/><BR/>The, what seems to me obvious, decision held: "<I>the Sixth Amendment's notice and jury trial guarantees require that any fact other than prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Fourteenth Amendment commands the same answer when a state statute is involved</I>."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1039161489041752842.post-8515207440203268842009-01-25T18:49:00.000-06:002009-01-25T18:49:00.000-06:00If the bushies are ever prosecuted for crimes they...If the bushies are ever prosecuted for crimes they can demand a jury trial, lawyers, and full court access.<BR/><BR/>Something they denied thousands of folks during their reign of abuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com