http://anarchyinyourhead.com


This is about the Baptist minister in Cali. that was beaten at a checkpoint for not answering questions of which he had no obligation to answer.

On the subject of questions with no obligation to answer, how would you answer this question:

What are your political beliefs? [Very Conservative] [Conservative] [Moderate] [Liberal] [Very Liberal]

I had that question on a juror information sheet earlier this week when I was on a jury panel for this guy's capital murder trial (prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty for whatever reason).

Aside from the obvious fact that it seems irrelevant on its face, that particular question is very difficult for me to answer - mainly because I think the association of the question and its answers are particularly meaningless.

As a juror, I think you have an obligation to answer and act in good faith and expect that the judge has approved the questions with good reason. I didn't like the fact that they were invasive, but I understand the need for the lawyers to know information about the jurors, and when the death penalty is at stake, I can see it as relevant.

But, I left the answer blank for several minutes and considered not signing the line at the bottom that says "I have answered all questions truthfully and completely". In the end, I figured that while I may be characterized as Conservative in fiscal and military/foreign policy issues, I'm definitely more liberal on social issues. And, even if they interpret "Liberal" as left-wing, if I answered Liberal and I interpreted that as Libertarian, but they interpreted it as Socialist-in-training, that's not my fault...

More convincingly, I figured on the pragmatic argument that now wasn't the time and place to make pain-in-the-ass esoteric arguments about politics really needing a two dimensional diagram like GTS has posted in the past, and I was #49 in the jury pool so there was no way in hell that they were going to dismiss 37 jurors in front of me. I did consider commenting that I'm surprised that someone with an advanced degree would put such a stupid question on the form, though.

(04-25-2009 09:33 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I'm surprised that someone with an advanced degree would put such a stupid question on the form, though.

So much better to track you by my dear (QUOTING Little Red Riding Hood and not endearing to by calling you "Dear" .... that is best left to Bawunee Fuwank)

Hey !!! Next time you get one of those throwed off type of Have to Answer Questions, slash thru the original answers and 'Write In' that you are "NONE OF THE ABOVE, I am a Pathological Homophobe"

I would so love to see the DA, Judge, Defendants Attorney try to deal with that in front of a crowd ...

.

The absolute funniest response was the woman in the front row who said "I'm kind of freaked out being in the same room as someone who killed another man" (turns out that part isn't even in dispute - the central issue of the trial was supposed to be whether it qualified as capital murder or felony murder. The only real difference between the two is apparently whether you shoot someone with the intent to kill or with some other intent ... i.e. just to get the hell out of there (obviously a little more nuanced if you kill someone with a punch or something like that). When they put the Texas Statutes up, what was striking to me is that if you kill someone in the commission of a felony *and* the other guy pulls a gun *and* you say clearly "ok, I'm not going to commit this felony any more", then the person committing the felony can claim self defense if he then kills the victim. Given the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", it seems like you could legally make a case for self-defense in the commission of a felony. Not that I think anyone is stupid enough to vote that way when on a OJury trial.

(04-25-2009 09:33 AM)I45owl Wrote:  On the subject of questions with no obligation to answer, how would you answer this question:

What are your political beliefs? [Very Conservative] [Conservative] [Moderate] [Liberal] [Very Liberal]

I had that question on a juror information sheet earlier this week when I was on a jury panel for this guy's capital murder trial (prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty for whatever reason).

Aside from the obvious fact that it seems irrelevant on its face, that particular question is very difficult for me to answer - mainly because I think the association of the question and its answers are particularly meaningless.

As a juror, I think you have an obligation to answer and act in good faith and expect that the judge has approved the questions with good reason. I didn't like the fact that they were invasive, but I understand the need for the lawyers to know information about the jurors, and when the death penalty is at stake, I can see it as relevant.

But, I left the answer blank for several minutes and considered not signing the line at the bottom that says "I have answered all questions truthfully and completely". In the end, I figured that while I may be characterized as Conservative in fiscal and military/foreign policy issues, I'm definitely more liberal on social issues. And, even if they interpret "Liberal" as left-wing, if I answered Liberal and I interpreted that as Libertarian, but they interpreted it as Socialist-in-training, that's not my fault...

More convincingly, I figured on the pragmatic argument that now wasn't the time and place to make pain-in-the-ass esoteric arguments about politics really needing a two dimensional diagram like GTS has posted in the past, and I was #49 in the jury pool so there was no way in hell that they were going to dismiss 37 jurors in front of me. I did consider commenting that I'm surprised that someone with an advanced degree would put such a stupid question on the form, though.

I really don't feel that you are obligated to answer any of those questions. If you are....Just how was that obligation created? I think that leaving the sheet blank or leaving those questions blank that you felt were intrusive or irrelevant is within your rights of privacy.

(04-26-2009 08:11 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2009 09:33 AM)I45owl Wrote:  On the subject of questions with no obligation to answer, how would you answer this question:

What are your political beliefs? [Very Conservative] [Conservative] [Moderate] [Liberal] [Very Liberal]

I had that question on a juror information sheet earlier this week when I was on a jury panel for this guy's capital murder trial (prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty for whatever reason).

Aside from the obvious fact that it seems irrelevant on its face, that particular question is very difficult for me to answer - mainly because I think the association of the question and its answers are particularly meaningless.

As a juror, I think you have an obligation to answer and act in good faith and expect that the judge has approved the questions with good reason. I didn't like the fact that they were invasive, but I understand the need for the lawyers to know information about the jurors, and when the death penalty is at stake, I can see it as relevant.

But, I left the answer blank for several minutes and considered not signing the line at the bottom that says "I have answered all questions truthfully and completely". In the end, I figured that while I may be characterized as Conservative in fiscal and military/foreign policy issues, I'm definitely more liberal on social issues. And, even if they interpret "Liberal" as left-wing, if I answered Liberal and I interpreted that as Libertarian, but they interpreted it as Socialist-in-training, that's not my fault...

More convincingly, I figured on the pragmatic argument that now wasn't the time and place to make pain-in-the-ass esoteric arguments about politics really needing a two dimensional diagram like GTS has posted in the past, and I was #49 in the jury pool so there was no way in hell that they were going to dismiss 37 jurors in front of me. I did consider commenting that I'm surprised that someone with an advanced degree would put such a stupid question on the form, though.

I really don't feel that you are obligated to answer any of those questions. If you are....Just how was that obligation created? I think that leaving the sheet blank or leaving those questions blank that you felt were intrusive or irrelevant is within your rights of privacy.

Obligation in the sense that participation in the jury process cannot be strictly compulsory, but is a voluntary exercise of civic "duty". I agree it is within my rights, but the question is ... as a practical matter, how do you think you'd have answered? And, apologies for a wanton hijacking of your thread.

I would have simply said that none of the answers applied to me, and any of the options offered would be misleading.
If forced to pick one, this may sound strange, but my answer would depend on the nature of the case.
In a criminal case I would tend to vote with the liberals.
In a civil case I would tend to vote with the conservatives.

(04-26-2009 10:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2009 08:11 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2009 09:33 AM)I45owl Wrote:  On the subject of questions with no obligation to answer, how would you answer this question:

What are your political beliefs? [Very Conservative] [Conservative] [Moderate] [Liberal] [Very Liberal]

I had that question on a juror information sheet earlier this week when I was on a jury panel for this guy's capital murder trial (prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty for whatever reason).

Aside from the obvious fact that it seems irrelevant on its face, that particular question is very difficult for me to answer - mainly because I think the association of the question and its answers are particularly meaningless.

As a juror, I think you have an obligation to answer and act in good faith and expect that the judge has approved the questions with good reason. I didn't like the fact that they were invasive, but I understand the need for the lawyers to know information about the jurors, and when the death penalty is at stake, I can see it as relevant.

But, I left the answer blank for several minutes and considered not signing the line at the bottom that says "I have answered all questions truthfully and completely". In the end, I figured that while I may be characterized as Conservative in fiscal and military/foreign policy issues, I'm definitely more liberal on social issues. And, even if they interpret "Liberal" as left-wing, if I answered Liberal and I interpreted that as Libertarian, but they interpreted it as Socialist-in-training, that's not my fault...

More convincingly, I figured on the pragmatic argument that now wasn't the time and place to make pain-in-the-ass esoteric arguments about politics really needing a two dimensional diagram like GTS has posted in the past, and I was #49 in the jury pool so there was no way in hell that they were going to dismiss 37 jurors in front of me. I did consider commenting that I'm surprised that someone with an advanced degree would put such a stupid question on the form, though.

I really don't feel that you are obligated to answer any of those questions. If you are....Just how was that obligation created? I think that leaving the sheet blank or leaving those questions blank that you felt were intrusive or irrelevant is within your rights of privacy.

Obligation in the sense that participation in the jury process cannot be strictly compulsory, but is a voluntary exercise of civic "duty". I agree it is within my rights, but the question is ... as a practical matter, how do you think you'd have answered? And, apologies for a wanton hijacking of your thread.

I would not have answered the questions that I felt were invasive. I'm glad you put this here...I think the court system is interesting. I am a fervent advocate of using the system to effect change. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful means of civil disobedience one can practice. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people have no clue that it is your right as a juror to "judge the law as well as the person being charged with violation of that law". The court will NOT tell you this and you will be discharged for letting them know that you believe in this right...but...It is a right none the less.

Making it known that you believe in the right of jury nullification is the fastest way to avoid ever serving on a jury.

(04-26-2009 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would have simply said that none of the answers applied to me, and any of the options offered would be misleading.
If forced to pick one, this may sound strange, but my answer would depend on the nature of the case.
In a criminal case I would tend to vote with the liberals.
In a civil case I would tend to vote with the conservatives.

I agree with your answers down the line, and understand how you would caste your answer. I considered your initial answer. I knew it was a criminal case, hence my answer. But, really, it was clear I'd just be wasting everyone's time if I just didn't pick one.

edit: I should add that per-instructions, you were only allowed to choose one.

(04-26-2009 12:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2009 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would have simply said that none of the answers applied to me, and any of the options offered would be misleading.
If forced to pick one, this may sound strange, but my answer would depend on the nature of the case.
In a criminal case I would tend to vote with the liberals.
In a civil case I would tend to vote with the conservatives.

I agree with your answers down the line, and understand how you would caste your answer. I considered your initial answer. I knew it was a criminal case, hence my answer. But, really, it was clear I'd just be wasting everyone's time if I just didn't pick one.

edit: I should add that per-instructions, you were only allowed to choose one.

Let's be frank. The system is (regardless of how much it preaches that it is fair) totally stacked against any defendant.
The voir dire process is designed to make sure that someone with principles that go contrary to the court will not be able to hang a jury.

I also wonder how a system that pays the judge could ever be totally fair to the defendant. I would prefer that to have a more free market system of arbitration instead of this convoluted process we have now.

What kind of system actually represents the people that requires them to stand in tribute for its overseer? Maybe I'm just a contrarian but it would look like those in charge of these courts should be the ones to stand in tribute to those that are funding their system.

(04-26-2009 06:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe I'm just a contrarian

This is uncharacteristic of you - you're usually not prone to understatement.

If you think the "Free Mumia" fruitcakes are bothersome, wait until the "system" is a corporation is in charge ... those folks love Corporate America.

oh, yea... What part of the voir dire process does that. as a Juror, You are free to come to a conclusion based upon your convictions. The prosecutor, defendant, and even the judge can "guide" your decision, but you are not bound to believe anything they say. All may only tell you half-truths or downright lies. They may also only show you part of the evidence, you therefore must come to a conclusion based upon your own personal convictions. If you feel a law is unjust, you are free to nullify it. You just can't tell anyone that is what you are doing.

(04-26-2009 08:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  They may must also only show you part of the evidence, you therefore must come to a conclusion based upon your own personal convictions.

I agree generally with you, with the above modifications (for various reasons ... a prosecutor won't deliberately introduce evidence that introduces doubt and a defense lawyer won't generally present evidence that indicates the defendant is an a$$hole, though he may concede as much during the trial).

I'm not sure what you mean by "must come to a conclusion based upon your own personal convictions", but this sounds dangerous to me. If your personal convictions are that "the man" is out to get successful black people, then it doesn't matter what evidence you are presented ... OJ will go free... If you mean morals, and you believe that anyone who rapes and kills must die, then your personal convictions may lead you to convict someone who's innocent, if you let that guide you more than the evidence. So, your judgment about the quality of evidence and the basic importance of the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" as well as basic logic and reason have to play a prominent role. Again, I'm just not sure what you really mean by your statement above. Are you just referring to the justness of a given law in the context of jury nullification?

a strong persuasion or belief - it supposed to be simple. Yea, it sounds dangerous to most judges also, they fear the right of the Jury in the hands of the common man, you know, he is too stupid to appreciate the subtleties of our great justice system, even though the jury system is the last bastion of freedom left in this country, secured by our forefathers, the final equalizer of bad law, bad law which, there is no shortage of. Problem for the citizenry is judges have in their modern wisdom, obscured the facts about the role of the Juror, to the point that the jury pool is fast becoming a stacked deck. Educating oneself is the only way.

(04-26-2009 08:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2009 06:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Maybe I'm just a contrarian

This is uncharacteristic of you - you're usually not prone to understatement.

If you think the "Free Mumia" fruitcakes are bothersome, wait until the "system" is a corporation is in charge ... those folks love Corporate America.

..OK

I just would like to see a workable system that was not funded by the very people trying to put you in a cell....That in itself seems to be a conflict of interest.

(04-26-2009 08:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  oh, yea... What part of the voir dire process does that. as a Juror, You are free to come to a conclusion based upon your convictions. The prosecutor, defendant, and even the judge can "guide" your decision, but you are not bound to believe anything they say. All may only tell you half-truths or downright lies. They may also only show you part of the evidence, you therefore must come to a conclusion based upon your own personal convictions. If you feel a law is unjust, you are free to nullify it. You just can't tell anyone that is what you are doing.

The fact that jurors are not told of the right of jury nullification by the court and in fact are told just the opposite.... nullifies the entire system IMO. The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of this right and yet clearly stated it was not the obligation of the court to inform the jury of that right. Then...if you dare to even speak about this during a trial you can be jailed under contempt charges?? How can this be a just system with this contradiction?

(04-27-2009 12:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  a strong persuasion or belief - it supposed to be simple. Yea, it sounds dangerous to most judges also, they fear the right of the Jury in the hands of the common man, you know, he is too stupid to appreciate the subtleties of our great justice system, even though the jury system is the last bastion of freedom left in this country, secured by our forefathers, the final equalizer of bad law, bad law which, there is no shortage of. Problem for the citizenry is judges have in their modern wisdom, obscured the facts about the role of the Juror, to the point that the jury pool is fast becoming a stacked deck. Educating oneself is the only way.

Yes..you nailed it. The system is stacked against the defendant because of the courts failure to inform the jury of its rights.

FIJA.com is best place to inform yourself of this.

They have information that you can print out and even give out to potential jurors. I have participated in 3 FIJA out reaches at my courthouse. It is NOT popular with those at the courthouse and you can only do it outside, but you will be surprised how many people do not know this information and later come and thank you. It will also cause quite a commotion with the bureaucrats. The first time you participate in one of these outreaches, you can be almost 100% sure the cops will be called in to investigate.

(04-29-2009 05:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

:lmfao:Ok....but..If you think either gang of thugs has your best interest at heart...you might better get yourself some glasses stronger than that!