Slashdot Mirror

Here is a case where that statue was applied, http://caught.net/prose/STATE%...

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPERIOR COURT---PROVIDENCE, SC.

THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
Plaintiff

COUNT II-- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

14. Defendants actions created a type of malicious prosecution based on "guilt by association," which violated Mr. Seymour's Due Process rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, sections 2, 6, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present. See United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 (1967). Mr. Seymour was denied notice of accusation, the right to confront his [would be] accusers, and of his presumption of innocence. See Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 480 (1974)[citing Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960)][notice of accusation]; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 447-8 (1966)[illegal police procedures]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965) and State v. Brown, 706 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I. 1998)[citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974)][right to confront accusers/witnesses]. The Plaintiff is being deprived of significant liberty and property interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (i.e., the ability to decide who may visit or enter his home). See L.A. Ray Realty v. Town of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202, 210-11 (R.I. 1997)[citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)][Substantive Due Process]; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 481-6 [cited in Lawrence v. Texas, Case No. 02-102 (USSC, 6/26/2003)], and Aurelio v. R.I. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 985 F.Supp. 48, 56-57 (D.R.I. 1997)[Procedural Due Process].

Propaganda works best where you have at least an element of truth. The conviction rates, sentences and so on for the poor and rich in the US legal system are extremely different (look also at black vs white). Imagine how much worse it is for a poor (relative to the USA - he could be pretty rich at home) Russian who doesn't properly speak English and has the huge psychological pressure of having nobody nearby he knows at all.

Simple fact: the US legal system is deeply scary; there is a huge false conviction rate. Remember what we are always told, death sentences are the ones that are most investigated and are 100% sure. The innocence project shows the US has a minimum of a 12% false conviction rate for death sentences; other crimes must be much worse. Unlike people convicted before DNA evidence, nothing new will show up after the fact to save you.

Most convictions in the US are "shaky" and many are simply wrong. I'm sure it's even worse in most of Russia, but if you are having to compare yourself with Russia then you have already gone mad.

"And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it."

And thus the BIGGEST problem with the "PEOPLE" in this country, believing that when you're on a a jury your are simply there to follow a judges orders. Serving on a jury is NOT simply deciding whether a person did or did not break the law but is the one time in your life that as an individual you are not only permitted but dutybound to sit in judgement of unjust laws. Jury duty is the one opportunity that the average joe can actually be "we the people". Why do you think lawyers get to screen jury members? They're looking for those people who actually have an ounce of deductive reasoning ability and who MIGHT apply it.

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

No,no,no,no, if you think 'only the judge is allowed to interpret the law' then you don't live in a Constitutional lawful state. You don't live in Syria by any chance, do ya? ;-)

It's the jury's prerrogative to ignore the judge's instructions on the interpretation of the law

some links where I check up on my sedicious way of thinking before irresponsibly posting:

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
http://www.fija.org/
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/USvDougherty1972.htm ( US vs Dougherty 1972, Court of Appeals )

Two words. Jury nullification. It's possibly unethical, but it happens. http://www.caught.net/juror.htm for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification for definition Google (or whatever) "jury nullification" If the law is wrong and a one sided judiciary won't overturn it, it's up to the jurors.

Jury nullification was explicitly killed in California in 2001. I can't find a relevant news article, only "slanted" articles decrying the decision (with which I happen to agree). Judges are free to remove any juror who may be considering nullification, and they can instruct the jury not to nullify. blech.

California's attempt to kill jury nullification may or may not be workable; it will depend upon higher courts, and whether they were trying to kill it for their own system (state courts), or all cases, including Federal stuff. If they're trying to kill it in the Federal system as well, they might have problems. From http://www.caught.net/juror.htm:

But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?

It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "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." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

...

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Nonetheless, I do think that jury nullification is a very important check on governmental power. One need only look at the most famous case of jury nullification--the libel trial of John Peter Zenger--to see that.

Even when they loose, they win. They bring the issue to light. If you don't like how they handle a case, then you take the case over or hire a lawyer to take the case over.

This applies to doctors, lawyers, fighters, etc. If you only take easy cases, you can always win. If Mike Tyson only fights drunks at the local bar, he will always win. If you only take hard cases, you may lose more than you win.

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.

A further note from Chief Justice John Jay, to the jury in the first jury trial held before the Supreme Court.

"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 have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

See, we used to have judges who didn't lie to their juries.

It's called jury nullification, and it's a fact whether judges want to admit it or not. This site, http://www.caught.net/juror.htm , explains it better than I could, but the basic concept is that juries do have the right to judge both the facts and the law, and there is a lot of precedent for it. The idea is that a jury is one of the few times when the people take direct control of the government. The rest of time we deligate it to our representatives, but in trials, where guilt or innocence is determined, the stakes are important enough so that we the people take matters into our own hands.