Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd

wuzzagrunt · 07-20-2004, 12:19 AM

I mean really PO'd!!!

I got called for jury duty last week, and like a good citizen I went down to the court house to do my civic duty. I get paid by my employer for jury service (cool!) and the lawyers keep much better hours than I do, so I was actually happy to get the summons. Even if that were not true, I still consider it an important duty that citizens should not shirk.

So anyway.......I get called for a criminal case and am sworn-in and seated in the jury box with 15 other souls. The judge begins a round of questioning; things like: "Can you be fair?", "Can you deliver a verdict based on the standards of evidence [as explained] regardless of your personal feelings about the defendant or the attorneys?", etc., etc., yadda, yadda......" I answer: "Yes.", "Yes.", "Yes.", "Yes.", to all her questions.

Then she gets to THE QUESTION: "Can you deliver a verdict, based on the law, as I give it to you--whether you agree with it or not? I told the judge that I thought she would prefer to hear my answer in private.

After she cleared the other potential jurors from the courtroom, she asked me to explain myself. I could sense that some of the pleasant, kindergarten teacher demeanor, she'd exhibited previously, had begun to cheese-up. Just a li'l bit.

I explained that I had taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and that I could not abnegate that duty on the say-so of a judge. I continued to explain that if I felt--in my heart--that the law, or the judges ruling(s) were in conflict with the Constitution, I would vote accordingly.

She argued that a jurors responsibility is to make a finding of fact, and it is the judges resonsibility to rule on matters of law. She added that the whole process breaks down if each individual picks and chooses what what he/she likes and ignores the law. I assured her I could vote "guilty"--assuming the burden of proof had been met--even if I didn't like the law. As long as the law was not in conflict with the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution, I don't believe my opinion of it is relevant, in any way. That's a matter to be taken up in the ballot box, or the soap box--not the jury box.

We went back and forth like that for a good long while. All the while, she was getting more and more beligerent. She was able to contain herself, but barely. She made me sound more like an arrogant know-it-all (ok, I'll give her partial credit for a correct answer on that question) each time she restated what I'd just said. Finally, I said: "The best way I can explain it to you is with a hypothetical: Let's say you are driving your car, and your passenger is the Senior Traffic Control Engineer for the Department of City Planning. You come to an intersection and a sign says; 'NO LEFT TURN'. Your passenger assures you that the sign means that left turns are allowed. Would you put your faith in your passenger's education, and experience? Of course you wouldn't! You'd say: 'Poop on that! I can read english and the sign says: NO LEFT TURN' If you put your faith in your passenger's expertise, the cop will still write the ticket to your name, and any accident you might cause will still be your responsibility."

Now the judge is really steamed. She says: "So, your telling me that you're just going to do what you want, regardless?" I know enough to not get into a whizzing contest with a judge--in her own courtroom--so I told her that I thought I'd made myself clear, and that I was sorry that she chose to understand it that way--but "Yes, Your Honor, I'm just going to do what I want--regardless." Man! You could almost hear the blood vessels bursting!

The whole time, the look on the faces of the ADA and the defense attorney was kind of hard to describe. Not approval or disapproval, really. Not exactly like I had dropped trou' and exposed myself to the court--more like I had flapped my arms and flown around the courtroom a couple of times under my own power. Like they were having real difficulty wrapping their brains around what they were witnessing. When the judge dismissed me, I beat feet outta there. I thought, if I hung around, I was going to see a judge spontaneously combust.

Note: Obviously, the above is not a verbatum transcript, but it is a pretty close representation of what was said in the court that day. There was a good deal more said (and the judge was clearly NOT an idiot) but the above is the essence of the exchange. I could have kept my mouth shut and done what I thought was right, but she asked and I had sworn to tell the truth. I thought I was doing right by not making an issue in open court and (possibly) "polluting" the whole jury pool.

Question: is what I said, really, such a radical concept?

1952Sniper · 07-20-2004, 08:09 AM

Good on ya, man! Unfortunately, that IS a radical concept in today's world. Our legal system has been so perverted that judges will not allow juries to decide anything other than what they give to them. If you do a little Constitutional research, juries are indeed allowed to rule on the law, not just the finding of fact. I have a little juror's handbook that was given to me that explains it all in detail. The text of it is also available online. Here's a page that has it: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html

But consider the following quotes:

Quote:

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." ~John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." ~Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." ~Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. supreme Court, 1941

"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..." ~U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)

Marlin · 07-20-2004, 10:03 AM

Good overview, Sniper.

Generally, in most simple cases, whether civil or criminal, the judge was correct in characterizing in broad terms the jury's duties as being a finder of FACT. That, of course, comes before the application of the law. One must know exactly what happened THEN it is applied to the law. Most of the time this merely rests on the facts, Ma'am, as Sgt Friday was famous for saying.

If there appears to be a conflict in the application of the law in an arrest and interrogatory phases of investigation, then the jury cannot shirk that responsibility, either. There is other case law that agrees with the Dougherty case but I can't remember them off the tip of my tongue.

In cases where a jury does not properly interpret the law or applies it irroniously and obviously so, then the judge can set it aside or modify it in some way in civil cases and set it aside in a criminal action by granting a new trial, etc.

I would have reacted differently if I were the judge in this example. I will say, that in thirty or so years, I never had this issue raised, but, then again, I was a strict constitutional jurist. I do think that you had some valid points, Wuzz, and the judge should not have taken it so personally.

Just 2¢ worth of thinking on the subject.

wuzzagrunt · 07-21-2004, 12:15 AM

The legal system requires some intellectual discipline to make it work. Others may hold a different opinion, but I'd say in general, the juror who substitutes his own judgement for that of the judge's makes a mistake. The judge has--or should be assumed to have--a much greater technical knowledge of the law.

On the other hand, law schools seem to be teaching that the Constitution is a highly complex instrument, and only black-robed priests are capable of divining it's meaning. I think that position bears a striking resemblance to the emanatory product of the equine digestive process.

45shooter · 07-29-2004, 07:21 PM

wuzzagrunt,
While I agree with your point 100%, I wonder why you did not clam up and "taint" the jury instead?

I realize that you were just answering the judge with an honest reply, but since the judge seems to think she could make the law up as she's goes, I would have made a point to make sure the jury judged in the correct fashion. So poor sap might have been convicted of something just because the jury delivered a verdict because the judge said so.

I have a small jury handbook that a local shop was giving out, I have read it and I keep it in my vehicle in case of jury duty or as a reference when discussing politics and such. The book has the Declaration, the Constitution and a guide to help if you are a juror with questions the judge won't answer.

wuzzagrunt · 07-30-2004, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45shooter

wuzzagrunt,
While I agree with your point 100%, I wonder why you did not clam up and "taint" the jury instead?

Because I had been sworn in and the judge asked the question directly. I wasn't planning to volunteer answers to questions that weren't asked, but an oath is serious biz.

1952Sniper · 08-02-2004, 09:48 AM

Quote:

I have a small jury handbook that a local shop was giving out, I have read it and I keep it in my vehicle in case of jury duty or as a reference when discussing politics and such. The book has the Declaration, the Constitution and a guide to help if you are a juror with questions the judge won't answer.

Interesting side note: I understand that the latest training manuals for police and federal law enforcement has certain "indicators" for them to look for when trying to determine if a person is a terrorist. One of these indicators is whether a person talks about the Constitution or has a copy of it. I kid you not.

Marlin · 08-02-2004, 09:50 AM

That's one of the most dangerous things I've heard.

1952Sniper · 08-02-2004, 10:58 AM

Read this, Marlin. http://www.progress.org/fold223.htm He talks about it. He also provides two links to scanned images of an FBI flyer that they distributed to law enforcement around the nation (I provided these links below, as well). These images reside on the http://www.keepandbeararms.com site, by the way.

FBI flyer - front page
FBI flyer - inside

wuzzagrunt · 08-02-2004, 11:33 AM

One of the indicators is supposed to be: "Questions authority for stop."

I guess I'd better fill out some change of address cards to let the Post Office know to forward all my mail to Gitmo.

07-20-2004, 12:19 AM	#1
wuzzagrunt V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 369	Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd I mean *really* PO'd!!! I got called for jury duty last week, and like a good citizen I went down to the court house to do my civic duty. I get paid by my employer for jury service (cool!) and the lawyers keep much better hours than I do, so I was actually happy to get the summons. Even if that were not true, I still consider it an important duty that citizens should not shirk. So anyway.......I get called for a criminal case and am sworn-in and seated in the jury box with 15 other souls. The judge begins a round of questioning; things like: "Can you be fair?", "Can you deliver a verdict based on the standards of evidence [as explained] regardless of your personal feelings about the defendant or the attorneys?", etc., etc., yadda, yadda......" I answer: "Yes.", "Yes.", "Yes.", "Yes.", to all her questions. Then she gets to THE QUESTION: "Can you deliver a verdict, based on the law, *as I give it to you--whether you agree with it or not? I told the judge that I thought she would prefer to hear my answer in private. After she cleared the other potential jurors from the courtroom, she asked me to explain myself. I could sense that some of the pleasant, kindergarten teacher demeanor, she'd exhibited previously, had begun to cheese-up. Just a li'l bit. I explained that I had taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and that I could not abnegate that duty on the say-so of a judge. I continued to explain that if I felt--in my heart--that the law, or the judges ruling(s) were in conflict with the Constitution, I would vote accordingly. She argued that a jurors responsibility is to make a finding of fact, and it is the judges resonsibility to rule on matters of law. She added that the whole process breaks down if each individual picks and chooses what what he/she likes* and ignores the law. I assured her I could vote "guilty"--assuming the burden of proof had been met--even if I didn't like the law. As long as the law was not in conflict with the *clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution*, I don't believe my opinion of it is relevant, in any way. That's a matter to be taken up in the ballot box, or the soap box--not the jury box. We went back and forth like that for a good long while. All the while, she was getting more and more beligerent. She was able to contain herself, but barely. She made me sound more like an arrogant know-it-all (ok, I'll give her partial credit for a correct answer on that question) each time she restated what I'd just said. Finally, I said: "The best way I can explain it to you is with a hypothetical: Let's say you are driving your car, and your passenger is the Senior Traffic Control Engineer for the Department of City Planning. You come to an intersection and a sign says; 'NO LEFT TURN'. Your passenger assures you that the sign means that left turns are allowed. Would you put your faith in your passenger's education, and experience? Of course you wouldn't! You'd say: 'Poop on that! I can read english and the sign says: NO LEFT TURN' If you put your faith in your passenger's expertise, the cop will still write the ticket to your name, and any accident you might cause will still be your responsibility." Now the judge is really steamed. She says: "So, your telling me that you're just going to do what you want, regardless?" I know enough to not get into a whizzing contest with a judge--in her own courtroom--so I told her that I thought I'd made myself clear, and that I was sorry that she chose to understand it that way--but "Yes, Your Honor, I'm just going to do what I want--regardless." Man! You could almost hear the blood vessels bursting! The whole time, the look on the faces of the ADA and the defense attorney was kind of hard to describe. Not approval or disapproval, really. Not exactly like I had dropped trou' and exposed myself to the court--more like I had flapped my arms and flown around the courtroom a couple of times under my own power. Like they were having real difficulty wrapping their brains around what they were witnessing. When the judge dismissed me, I beat feet outta there. I thought, if I hung around, I was going to see a judge spontaneously combust. Note: Obviously, the above is not a verbatum transcript, but it is a pretty close representation of what was said in the court that day. There was a good deal more said (and the judge was clearly NOT an idiot) but the above is the essence of the exchange. I could have kept my mouth shut and done what I thought was right, but she asked and I had sworn to tell the truth. I thought I was doing right by not making an issue in open court and (possibly) "polluting" the whole jury pool. Question: is what I said, really, such a radical concept? -->

07-20-2004, 10:03 AM	#3
Marlin TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever! Contributor Posts: 13,853	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd Good overview, Sniper. Generally, in most simple cases, whether civil or criminal, the judge was correct in characterizing in broad terms the jury's duties as being a finder of FACT. That, of course, comes before the application of the law. One must know exactly what happened THEN it is applied to the law. Most of the time this merely rests on the facts, Ma'am, as Sgt Friday was famous for saying. If there appears to be a conflict in the application of the law in an arrest and interrogatory phases of investigation, then the jury cannot shirk that responsibility, either. There is other case law that agrees with the Dougherty case but I can't remember them off the tip of my tongue. In cases where a jury does not properly interpret the law or applies it irroniously and obviously so, then the judge can set it aside or modify it in some way in civil cases and set it aside in a criminal action by granting a new trial, etc. I would have reacted differently if I were the judge in this example. I will say, that in thirty or so years, I never had this issue raised, but, then again, I was a strict constitutional jurist. I do think that you had some valid points, Wuzz, and the judge should not have taken it so personally. Just 2¢ worth of thinking on the subject. __________________ *The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.* *The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.*

07-21-2004, 12:15 AM	#4
wuzzagrunt V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 369	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd The legal system requires some intellectual discipline to make it work. Others may hold a different opinion, but I'd say in general, the juror who substitutes his own judgement for that of the judge's makes a mistake. The judge has--or should be assumed to have--a much greater technical knowledge of the law. On the other hand, law schools seem to be teaching that the Constitution is a highly complex instrument, and only black-robed priests are capable of divining it's meaning. I think that position bears a striking resemblance to the emanatory product of the equine digestive process.

07-29-2004, 07:21 PM	#5
45shooter Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pa. Posts: 22	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd wuzzagrunt, While I agree with your point 100%, I wonder why you did not clam up and "taint" the jury instead? I realize that you were just answering the judge with an honest reply, but since the judge seems to think she could make the law up as she's goes, I would have made a point to make sure the jury judged in the correct fashion. So poor sap might have been convicted of something just because the jury delivered a verdict because the judge said so. I have a small jury handbook that a local shop was giving out, I have read it and I keep it in my vehicle in case of jury duty or as a reference when discussing politics and such. The book has the Declaration, the Constitution and a guide to help if you are a juror with questions the judge won't answer. __________________ We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. —Benjamin Franklin, 1776 After signing the Declaration of Independence

08-02-2004, 09:50 AM	#8
Marlin TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever! Contributor Posts: 13,853	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd That's one of the most dangerous things I've heard. __________________ *The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.* *The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.*

08-02-2004, 10:58 AM	#9
1952Sniper Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 5,138	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd Read this, Marlin. http://www.progress.org/fold223.htm He talks about it. He also provides two links to scanned images of an FBI flyer that they distributed to law enforcement around the nation (I provided these links below, as well). These images reside on the http://www.keepandbeararms.com site, by the way. FBI flyer - front page FBI flyer - inside

08-02-2004, 11:33 AM	#10
wuzzagrunt V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 369	Re: Tutorial: How to get the Judge PO'd One of the indicators is supposed to be: "Questions authority for stop." I guess I'd better fill out some change of address cards to let the Post Office know to forward all my mail to Gitmo.