Judges Are Tyrant Dictators
and
Jurors Don’t Know Their Rights.
A blatant misused of authority by the trial judge at Scott Peterson’s trial has cause Peterson in not receiving a fair trial with the judge
dismissed a juror because she did not “obey” the judge’s instructions. The attorneys for both sides should protest the actions of the judge.
But like jurors, attorneys are just as ignorant of juror’s rights. Below is the story as reported by ABC News. My comments in brackets [ ]
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. Nov 10, 2004 — Jurors deliberating the fate of Scott Peterson went back to square one when a second juror in the five-month long murder trial was dismissed and the judge told the remaining panelists to "start all over again." [Judges do not have any right to do this.]
Juror No. 7, an Asian woman in her 50s or 60s, apparently did her own research [Which the “pages of history shines” on what she did] on the case, a source with close knowledge of the case told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Such research would violate the judge's order to consider only evidence presented at trial. [Another misuse of authority. Judges cannot “order” jurors to do anything.]
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi replaced the juror with an alternate on Tuesday. He then ordered the other 11 members of the panel to set aside any conclusions they had made during the first five days of deliberations and begin anew.
"You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other resource," Delucchi reminded panelists. "The people and the defendant have the right to a verdict reached only after full participation." [Again, the judge is so bias and does not, or may know the jurors have the right to decide FACT and LAW]
U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972): "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."
The Pages of history shine:
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only.... (The juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.
U.S. SUPREME COURT (State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4): "...it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
To find out more on jurors right go to sites like Fully Informed Jury
And Original Intent Video Archive
"SpeakEasy" With Host Brian Champion (Jury Duty)
Email This Truth |
Corrections, Comments and Questions
Always Welcome
