News (Media Awareness Project) - US SC: PUB LTE: Trial By Jury |
Title: | US SC: PUB LTE: Trial By Jury |
Published On: | 2004-12-16 |
Source: | Post and Courier, The (Charleston, SC) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-17 06:13:48 |
TRIAL BY JURY
In the article, "Ruling affects role of circumstantial evidence,"
which appeared in a recent edition of The Post and Courier, you
reported that the S.C. Supreme Court has decided that judges can no
longer tell juries that "circumstantial evidence must be so strong as
to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt." This ruling
further strengthens the government's efforts to minimize the power the
jury was intended to wield in the courtroom.
Why do we have trials by jury anyhow? Why did our founding fathers
find it necessary to guarantee all people the right to trial by jury?
Think about it. What is the purpose of the jury? A jury is the last
line of defense that the people have against an overzealous
prosecutor, corrupt cop or judge. Our founding fathers thought this
was a good idea, and so do I. Yet the judges, prosecutors and, sadly,
most defense attorneys continue to facilitate the most horrendous of
courtroom crimes -- they continue to tamper with juries.
If I walked into a courtroom and spoke to jurors regarding their
absolute unalienable right to ignore the judge, prosecution, evidence
and even the other jurors; if I spoke of their patriotic duty to
nullify laws and punishments, to practice jury nullification, I can
assure you the judge would have me arrested and charged with jury
tampering. But when the state instructs the jury as to how they must
interpret evidence or lack of evidence, is that due process?
Thankfully, more and more people are learning of jury nullification
and how to get on a jury under the state's nullifier radar.
Once the people finally seize control of the courtrooms again, we'll
see an unprecedented number of defendants demanding a trial by jury.
When we do, the weight of the court calendar will force the state to
only seek prosecution for crimes that have an actual, living,
breathing victim associated with it.
After all, no matter how hard they try, judges cannot deny the jurors'
prerogative to acquit if they think the law is wrong.
Ed Haas
Mount Pleasant
In the article, "Ruling affects role of circumstantial evidence,"
which appeared in a recent edition of The Post and Courier, you
reported that the S.C. Supreme Court has decided that judges can no
longer tell juries that "circumstantial evidence must be so strong as
to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt." This ruling
further strengthens the government's efforts to minimize the power the
jury was intended to wield in the courtroom.
Why do we have trials by jury anyhow? Why did our founding fathers
find it necessary to guarantee all people the right to trial by jury?
Think about it. What is the purpose of the jury? A jury is the last
line of defense that the people have against an overzealous
prosecutor, corrupt cop or judge. Our founding fathers thought this
was a good idea, and so do I. Yet the judges, prosecutors and, sadly,
most defense attorneys continue to facilitate the most horrendous of
courtroom crimes -- they continue to tamper with juries.
If I walked into a courtroom and spoke to jurors regarding their
absolute unalienable right to ignore the judge, prosecution, evidence
and even the other jurors; if I spoke of their patriotic duty to
nullify laws and punishments, to practice jury nullification, I can
assure you the judge would have me arrested and charged with jury
tampering. But when the state instructs the jury as to how they must
interpret evidence or lack of evidence, is that due process?
Thankfully, more and more people are learning of jury nullification
and how to get on a jury under the state's nullifier radar.
Once the people finally seize control of the courtrooms again, we'll
see an unprecedented number of defendants demanding a trial by jury.
When we do, the weight of the court calendar will force the state to
only seek prosecution for crimes that have an actual, living,
breathing victim associated with it.
After all, no matter how hard they try, judges cannot deny the jurors'
prerogative to acquit if they think the law is wrong.
Ed Haas
Mount Pleasant
Member Comments |
No member comments available...