Comment by Heartless Libertarian

November 9, 2009 @ 8:07 am

Artist my ass…most of that crap could have been created by a pre-schooler with a set of finger paints.

Comment by Chris

November 9, 2009 @ 9:21 am

I like your blog a lot but just because a guy goes crazy and commits a violent act like this doesn’t mean that the fully informed jury is a bad idea.

I suggest you take a look around the fija.org website.

Comment by Phil

November 9, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

Until you find that his idea of a “fully informed jury” is that because a few innocent black men have been wrongfully convicted in the past, all or most black men should be wrongfully acquitted today.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. But nine times out of ten you can find those that want them to be right on the left.

Comment by Rivrdog

November 9, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

It boils down to this, Chris. The jury nullification folks would disregard the role of the judge. They preach that the jury instructions mean nothing, and orders from the judge mean nothing, that the jury can make any finding it wants.

What they want is anarchy in the courtroom. The same process that lead to the few unfortunate wrongful convictions they cite would only get worse id their system were in place.

I saw these kool-aid drinkers up close for 3 years as a Court Enforcement Deputy Sheriff 2000-2003 here in Portland, OR.

Comment by Chris

November 9, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

Riverdog,

Quoted from Wikipedia

It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
—The Works of John Adams.

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: “It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy”. State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794)

Juries were setup as the last check and balance against tyranny.

Comment by Toastrider

November 10, 2009 @ 4:07 am

Fine, but can I have an /actual/ jury of my peers, rather than 12 folks who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Comment by chicopanther

November 10, 2009 @ 6:03 am

Hey, folks, don’t knock jury nullification. That’s just the thing to use if Obama’s thugs want to take you to court over owning weapons (or any other thing). If you are on a jury and truly believe the accused is not guilty of any crime (regardless of what the actual written “law” says) then vote your conscience and say “not guilty.”

Seriously. Go check out the Fully Informed Jury Association at www.fija.org.

chicopanther

Comment by Rivrdog

November 10, 2009 @ 6:21 am

Toastrider has it right. I would have no problem being tried, with no preconditions, by a jury of MY PEERS. That would exclude all with less than a college degree, would exclude all who didn’t perform military service in wartime, and would exclude all who didn’t work full-time for 44 years.

I can’t get such a jury, so I’ll have a judge issue specific instructions to the sloths judging me, thank you.

Comment by Phil

November 10, 2009 @ 7:48 am

I’m not so sure you’re getting Monfort’s point, Chris. Or mine, for that matter.

Jury nullification, in the right circumstances (such as the prosecution of a homeowner who justifiably used self-defense to save the life of a family member by a prosecutor attempting to climb the political ladder), is all well and good.

But Monfort is declaring that an entire race deserves to always get their cases favorably resolved by using it. That is ignorant and childish.

Comment by Fred

November 10, 2009 @ 9:04 am

Having served on jury duty several times I would trust the jury using their common sense much more than the judges instructions. Free men and women don’t take instruction on how to think very well. It is amazing to me the kind of crimes that are taken to trial that are a total waste of time-most brought to trail for prosecutor ego. On the other hand remember OJ?

Comment by Chris

November 10, 2009 @ 9:19 am

Phil,
I understood the difference. I just hope people don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I didn’t want anyone to think that because this guy is a murdering douche that everything he believes is inherently “wrong”.

I didn’t want Jury Nullification to get painted with the same dirty brush.

Comment by Phil

November 10, 2009 @ 10:19 am

I doubt you’ll have folks confusing the two once he and people like him open their mouths.

Comment by Kevin S

November 11, 2009 @ 10:53 am

Rivrdog, what then is the role of the jury? Is it to lend validation to the judge? Give the verdict a veneer of legitimacy - as though all the people of the state approve of the law in question? As a juror, I am to stop thinking once I enter the courtroom? Why even have a jury then?
There are plenty of unjust laws out there that I could not in good conscience send someone to prison for violating. More are added to the books all the time. Maybe our courtrooms need a little “anarchy”, rather than unthinking subservience to the state.

Comment by Sualco

November 11, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

Jury null got us O.J.

And this guy got his BA in Law and Justice studies. He was an intern for the ACLU a “security guard” and a cop wantabe. Let us not forget he set bombs at the SPD garage intended to kill first reponders that were coming to fight the car fires he set. He is the logical out come of politics as practiced in Seattle. Allegedly.

This fight about jury null is beneath us and off point.