Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2011, 08:52 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
What makes you think that she was honest? She was asked for three individuals she disliked and she responded with three racial groups. We weren't in the courtroom so we couldn't see this prospective juror's demeanor or attitude, but it's really not hard to imagine that she was just lying to try and get off a jury. Heck, it's more likely that happened than that she's prejudiced against three major minority groups and the NYPD.
She wasn't lying, but maybe you should petition for her to be put under a lie detector test.

The judge expects the jurors to lie, demands it, even.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Anybody else picturing the climax of a bad Adam Sandler movie when you picture ergohead saying "Jury nullification is your right!" and dozens of people spontaneously cheering while the lawyers and judge sulk?
They didn't sulk - they were FKN furious.

The cheering surprised me. I didn't know there were a dozen bystanders standing in the hallway while the courtroom doors were open. The bailiff must have been asleep at his post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Just to be clear, jury nullification is a literal violation of the oath you take as a juror to obey the law. If you feel that the oath you take is worth less than your own personal feelings, then fair enough. I would almost certainly not vote to convict somebody on a marijuana possession charge, for example.
What oath? "to due my dooty to God and my Country"?

It is the jurors' duty and responsibility to judge both the law and the facts of the case.

Good people do not promote or practice Ollie North oathiness.

Taking an oath only presumes that without it you are a natural born liar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:38 AM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,406,128 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
She wasn't lying, but maybe you should petition for her to be put under a lie detector test.
Let's apply a little bit of common sense. A 20-something woman in New York, one of the most diversity cities in the world, who works in an industry in which she has daily contact with the general public is given a juror questionnaire. Which of the following is more likely:

A. This woman is honestly biased against African-Americans, Haitians, and Hispanics, thinks that every cop in the NYPD is lazy, has a convicted murderer in China for a relative, and when the judge asked "Why didn't you put 'Asians' down also?" the woman replied "maybe I should have." Maybe she also dislikes Asians.

or

B. She was trying to get out of jury duty.

In that one exchange alone that I quoted, a judge could reasonably declare her to be in contempt of court like in My Cousin Vinny. You don't sass judges.

Quote:
What oath? "to due my dooty to God and my Country"?

Typically an oath like this:

"Do you swear or affirm that you will try the matter in dispute and give a true verdict according to the evidence?" N.J.S.A. 2B:23-6 Oath of Jurors


Quote:
It is the jurors' duty and responsibility to judge both the law and the facts of the case.
Nope, jurors are only finders of fact. It is the role of the judge to determine the law. Your job as a juror is to apply the law as instructed by the judge to the facts as you find them to determine your verdict. In realistic terms, there is nothing to stop you from ignoring the judge but your own conscience at violating the oath you took before God and the court you serve in. In some cases, your conscience may rest easy. As I said, I would probably not vote to convict anybody on trial for a simple marijuana possession charge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 09:56 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Let's apply a little bit of common sense. A 20-something woman in New York, one of the most diversity cities in the world, who works in an industry in which she has daily contact with the general public is given a juror questionnaire. Which of the following is more likely:

A. This woman is honestly biased against African-Americans, Haitians, and Hispanics, thinks that every cop in the NYPD is lazy, has a convicted murderer in China for a relative, and when the judge asked "Why didn't you put 'Asians' down also?" the woman replied "maybe I should have." Maybe she also dislikes Asians.

Question: Which three people do you least admire?

Correct Answer: Judges, because their job is so hard; policemen, same reason, prosecuting attorneys, same reason.


or

B. She was trying to get out of jury duty.

In that one exchange alone that I quoted, a judge could reasonably declare her to be in contempt of court like in My Cousin Vinny. You don't sass judges.

Judge not lest ye be judged?

Typically an oath like this:

"Do you swear or affirm that you will try the matter in dispute and give a true verdict according to the evidence?" N.J.S.A. 2B:23-6 Oath of Jurors

Proper or improper application of the law in the subject case is paramount to the facts of the case.

Nope, jurors are only finders of fact. It is the role of the judge to determine the law. Your job as a juror is to apply the law as instructed by the judge to the facts as you find them to determine your verdict. In realistic terms, there is nothing to stop you from ignoring the judge but your own conscience at violating the oath you took before God and the court you serve in. In some cases, your conscience may rest easy. As I said, I would probably not vote to convict anybody on trial for a simple marijuana possession charge.
The jury is the most powerful check on the misapplication of law, or the proper nullification of bad law.

It was jury nullification that succeeded in getting prohibition repealed by Constitutional Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,725,469 times
Reputation: 11089
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford View Post
An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities. "This is an outrage, and so are you!" Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman, holding up her bile-filled juror questionnaire.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano.

Read more: Judge gives 'Juror No. 799' indefinite jury duty after she makes racist remarks on questionnaire
I wouldn't have that problem. I was called for jury duty once--and simply didn't go. I have better things to do with my time.

But I can guarantee that if I ever did serve, I would make sure I did so in a way that opposed the workings of the law, so that they would never ask me again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:02 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I wouldn't have that problem. I was called for jury duty once--and simply didn't go. I have better things to do with my time.
Racist!

Watch out! You could easily get mislabeled - and by a judge!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:09 AM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,406,128 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Judge not lest ye be judged?


More like don't sass judges, especially when they have broad authority to find you in contempt and to punish for it on the spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
The jury is the most powerful check on the misapplication of law, or the proper nullification of bad law.
We seem to be talking past each other at this point. I think that in at least some circumstances, a juror can and even should disregard the law as instructed by judges.

However, it is important to know that in doing so, you are violating the oath that you took when you were sworn in as a juror, you also almost certainly lied during voir dire, because virtually every juror gets asked if they can fairly apply the law to the facts of the case. The role of the juror is to find facts, not law. It is the role of the judge to determine the law and to instruct jurors on what the law is that applies to your case. In nullifying, you are violating your oath. If you're alright with that, then fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:13 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
[/b]More like don't sass judges, especially when they have broad authority to find you in contempt and to punish for it on the spot.



We seem to be talking past each other at this point. I think that in at least some circumstances, a juror can and even should disregard the law as instructed by judges.

However, it is important to know that in doing so, you are violating the oath that you took when you were sworn in as a juror, you also almost certainly lied during voir dire, because virtually every juror gets asked if they can fairly apply the law to the facts of the case. The role of the juror is to find facts, not law. It is the role of the judge to determine the law and to instruct jurors on what the law is that applies to your case. In nullifying, you are violating your oath. If you're alright with that, then fine.

You don't take the oath till after you've been selected, dummy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:19 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford View Post
An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities. "This is an outrage, and so are you!" Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman, holding up her bile-filled juror questionnaire.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano.

Read more: Judge gives 'Juror No. 799' indefinite jury duty after she makes racist remarks on questionnaire
Did she proffer any beliefs on wops, greaseballs, guineas, dayglows, etc?

My counselor during my high school years told me that where ever you find Chinks, you find dope.

And, he was a motorcycle mechanic from San Francisco, so he would know!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:24 AM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,406,128 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
You don't take the oath till after you've been selected, dummy.
No need for the personal attack there. Did I say that jurors take an oath before being sworn in? No, I said that prospective jurors are very often asked whether they can fairly apply the law to the facts of the case. To say you can when you intend to nullify is a lie, isn't it? If you say you can't, you'll be kicked off the jury for cause. To commit jury nullification, you have:

1. Almost certainly lied during voir dire; and
2. Violated your oath as a juror to apply the law to the evidence presented.

Why are you personally attacking me when on this point of jury nullification we are pretty much in agreement?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2011, 10:26 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,351,071 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
No need for the personal attack there. Did I say that jurors take an oath before being sworn in? No, I said that prospective jurors are very often asked whether they can fairly apply the law to the facts of the case. To say you can when you intend to nullify is a lie, isn't it? If you say you can't, you'll be kicked off the jury for cause. Why are you personally attacking me when on this point of jury nullification we are pretty much in agreement?
You were misleading by manipulative omission via non-linear stitchery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top