|
|
Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/07/06 16:26
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:36:33 GMT, "Mark Jones"
<noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Can you comment on how this affects the ruling in the Kriho case.
>If she lied before she was sworn in as a juror, I can see how
>she would be in trouble.
She did not lie.
>It all depends upon the questions that were asked of her prior to jury selection.
No one asked her about her prior involvement in drug advocacy.
>If she always told the
>truth to every question she was asked, it isn't her fault if the
>lawyers or judge failed to ask the right questions.
That is true.
>I wouldn't want to have to decide a case like this because it
>is one of those that sounds like jury nullification,
There is no doubt that Kriho engaged in nullification. She told the
jury that she was nullifying. One of the jurors ratted on her, and the
court levied a contempt citation. The appeals trial exonerated her
because it is illegal to use comments from the jury room.
>but looks
>like it could have been intentional to throw the trial before
>it even started.
It was intentional on Kriho's part because of her involvement in drug
advocacy.
>This is a tough one, no matter what decision
>is reached.
Kriho did not break the law just because she did not volunteer
information about her involvement in drug advocacy.
Here's an analogy. You are a potential juror in a death penalty case.
You are opposed to the death penalty. But you do not volunteer that
information and no one asks you (highly unlikely but let's assume that
no one asks you). Is contempt justified when you hang the jury -
assume the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Does it serve justice according to community standards if you are
stricken from the jury when you are asked if you oppose the death
penalty and you answer in the affirmative?
As Paul Hyett asks, why even have a jury trial if potential jurors are
weeded out in order to secure the outcome the state wants?
--
"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|