The jury is one of the important checks on the power of the state. It places the power of determining the facts of an alleged crime or controversy into the hands of the people, who are deemed more likely to render an unbiased determination of facts than the state. Judges are permitted to disturb a jury's guilty verdict if the verdict is against the great weight of evidence presented. The judge's overturning of the verdict is, of course, subject to appellate review. There is no historical justification, which allows a judge to alter a not guilty verdict and declare a defendant guilty.

The juries determine fact while the judge provides the law. There is the little used notion of jury nullification, which allows a jury to acquit a defendant if they reject the law. This would permit the jury into the realm of the judiciary, and is the ultimate in the ideal of a jury as a check on the power of the state.

Good explanation Kly. But in one these threads someone cited an Illinois jeopardy case in which the 7th circuit court of appeals ruled that the successful bribing of a trial judge rendered moot any claim by the defendant to double jeopardy when he was prosecuted a 2nd time for the same offense.

To what extent wold you consider the 7th's ruling to be precedent.

Jeopardy didn't apply there as the bribery never placed him in jeopardy.

Thanks Kly. But I was wondering if, for example, you think the same ruling might apply if the a jury or prosecutor was bribed.

Jeopardy would not attach if a defendant bribed a juror, such that it is determined that a verdict of guilt could not be reached. A judge trial is, of course, an easier call. If a prosecutor is bribed by a defendant, it would be very difficult to argue that jeopardy attached at the trial as the fact finding process was corrupted ab initio. There would be review to determine if the prosecutor still reasonably prosecuted the case, and if so, a defendant (although his hands are dirty from the bribe) might assert that a subsequent prosecution may be barred, or perhaps modified on the grounds of collateral estoppel. If certain facts were established legitimately (without a taint from the bribe), then those issues may be precluded from consideration at a subsequent trial. Of course, the defendant in any case must stand trial for the felony bribe.

I didn't address your other question about the ruling of the 7th Circuit. It is true as you stated earlier that decisions from US Courts of Appeal are limited to that specific circuit as well as the district courts it encompasses. Circuit court opinions are considered as non-binding outside the jurisdiction, but they are often considered as guiding nonetheless. Here the 7th Circuit's opinion, I believe, is consistent with most of the views held by the federal judiciary.

The Dumb Criminal parade continues out here:

Yesterday, local cops stopped a guy for going 83 in a 65 mph zone. Opened the trunk and found an illegal alien inside. Driver was illegal, too. Charged with human trafficking.

Today, paper reported that two guys were stopped for going more than 20 mph under the speed limit on an Interstate. Staties found 7 lbs of meth, 66 lbs of pot.

Subsidiary charge for both: DWH (Driving While Hispanic).

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency’s gathering of data on all telephone calls made in the United States appears to violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/...msnhp&pos=1

Indeed so.

Federal Court strikes down portions of polygamy law

What the **** is wrong with people?

I wouldn't even waste the taxpayers money on this. Take that out to the pasture and put them down. After they are put down, quote Goodfellas After they shoot Tommy D. and the old guy says "And That's That." and be done with it. There should be no rights for people like this.

Crime and Justice at its finest!!!


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/la...ticle-1.1511351

New Mexico Supreme Court: Same-sex marriage Published December 19, 2013Associated Press

The New Mexico Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state Thursday, declaring in a ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples.

New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.

Eight of the state's 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August, when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions. County officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.

State statutes don't explicitly prohibit or authorize gay marriage. However, the marriage laws -- unchanged since 1961 -- contain a marriage license application with sections for male and female applications. There also are references to "husband" and "wife."

Published: 23 December 2013 06:12 AM
A man and a woman were arrested Saturday after a cellphone that had been reported stolen fell from her bra as police were interviewing her, according to a police report.

The owner of the phone told police that a man and woman took her phone after she left it unattended inside a gas station the report stated.

Police were questioning witnesses when the female suspect bent over and the cellphone fell out of her bra and onto the floor, according to the report.

Kly and DT: What would likely be the predicates for the judge's decision which is stated below"

"An Oakland family whose 13-year-old daughter has been declared brain dead is hoping to celebrate Christmas in the hospital with her after a judge ordered hospital officials to keep her connected to a breathing machine."

Brain death is death, and once brain death is established by unequivocal, objective tests, determined by the best medical standards, the hospital is under no obligation to keep the patient on a ventilator. Brain death is much different than a coma or persistent vegetative state, and essentially the courts are powerless to order that a hospital keep someone, who is brain dead on life support.

It was my understanding that the judge in this case did not grant the petition to maintain the ventilator, but gave petitioners a few days to appeal.

Thanks Kly. I believe it was a state court judge's order. So, what would be the legal basis for such an order. Was it simply an equity issue even if there is not a state law on which to base such an order. I guess that as long as one has standing, a court can enjoin any type of action for some period of time until a final judgement is entered. Is that correct?

My guess is that the judge stayed the pulling of the plug to allow the family a few days to present evidence from a certified neurologist that establishes that brain death did not occur. Absent such a showing, the hospital should be free to disconnect the ventilator as it sees fit.

In this situation I believe that brain activity ceased following a procedure performed by the hospital. This places the hospital in line for a possible lawsuit, but does not changethe hospital's rights and responsibilities pertaining to the clinical diagnosis.

I feel very sorry for the family losing their thirteen year old so unexpectedly.

By Evan Perez, CNN
updated 12:09 PM EST, Fri December 27, 2013

(CNN) -- The National Security Agency notched a much-needed win in court, after a series of setbacks over the legality and even the usefulness of its massive data collection program.

A federal judge in New York ruled Friday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of data on nearly every phone call made in the United States is legal.

The ruling contrasts with another ruling last week by a federal judge in Washington, who called the same program "almost Orwellian" and likely unconstitutional.

In his ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge William Pauley said that while the NSA's program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act has become the center of controversy since it was revealed by leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it is legal. "But the question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to decide."

This decision is more in line with constitutional precedent than the previous decision.

Please explain why, Counselor .

The NSA's collection of information concerning when phone calls are made and the numbers between the parties of such calls does not interfere with the Fourth Amendment as the expectation of privacy is diminished when a third party (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) is purposely used as a necessary medium by which to conduct the communication. The content of the communication deserves some protection, but the fact that you made the call has not generally fallen under the umbrella of privacy protection in light of federal decisions interpreting the right. The process of collecting data also involves approval of magistrates, albeit a judge , created by statute which seems to be rubberstamping warrants.

The federal decision observes the constitutionality of the procedure, defined within the Patriot Act, and correctly observes that while legal, the executive and legislative branches must stay vigilant and critical to determine whether the practice is or remains good policy.

Good analysis Kly. I would add that too many people fail to recognize the 4th Amendment's use of the word unreasonable the definition of which, over time, has been somewhat transient. People tend to define privacy in their own terms without recognition of what you pointed out - expectation of privacy. They also frequently fail to recognize the statutory basis for governmental actions.

A federal judge has ruled that Yelp can be forced to reveal its posters identities. If it's sustained on appeal, that ruling could turn out to be quite a harbinger of things to come.

Kly, what do you think?

It's an interesting issue: Whether freedom of speech is violated by forcing to reveal identities of people, who wish to remain anonymous conserning commercial reviews posted on an internet site. Of concern is the chilling effect this decision has on speech as it undeniably discourages comments from those, who prefer to maintain anonymity, which the First Amendment recognizes as valid. However, where it is alleged that such comments constitute libel, which allegedly resulted in pecuniary loss, the umbrella of free speech protection is weakened. It is further weakened by the fact that the plaintiff is not a public figure or official and that the speech is commercial, and not political.

I imagine that as this issue arises in other jurisdictions, the competing interests may be weighed differently and that rulings, like Virginia's, which force the release of identities, will be narrowly tailored to achieve the individual result. A body of precedent will develop before any broad pronouncement might be rendered.

In the Virginia case the release of the names is particularly vital as the libel action specifically claims that the libelous business reviews were fictitious. I'm not sure what evidence or allegation was submitted to support the claim, but there is a compelling argument that the plaintiff is unduly prejudiced if the names are released.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned aside Arizona's appeal to reinstate its law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

A federal appeals court last year said the restrictions were unconstitutional.

The high court's refusal without comment to intervene now means the provisions passed in 2012 cannot be enforced.

A riddle about crime:

Sally is a blonde-haired, competent adult, a 22 year old college student, who was charged with the murder of her ex-boyfriend, Dave. Sally lives with her parents and her sister, Joan, a shy brunette, and her brother, Mike, a slow-witted, red-haired ten year old.

Police learned and trial testimony established that Sally had telephoned Dave and invited him to her house, at which he arrived 30 minutes after the call. Mike testified that he was present in the house when Dave arrived, spoke with him briefly and then left by himself five minutes later. He said Sally was speaking with Dave on the sofa of the living room when he left, and when he returned ten minutes later, Dave was dead, lying on the livingroom floor with two apparent gunshot wounds to the chest.

Joan testified that she was present when Sally pulled out a revolver, which she carried for apparent safety reasons because her school was in a shady part of town, and shot Dave twice. Joan was prevented by Sally from calling the police, so she screamed for help until police came.

Sally confessed to the killing and stated that she had planned to kill Dave for a while. Joan testified to what she had witnessed, claiming she was unaware of Sally's plan even though she felt very close to her. She described how Dave had begged for his life before being shot, and how he suffered for a few minutes before Sally shot him a second time. Fingerprints on the trigger and gun powder residue on the hand confirmed Sally as the shooter.

Sally was convicted of first degree murder, which carries at a minimum,a life sentence in the state where the murder took place. Because of the circumstances the prosecutor was seeking the death penalty, and the judge asked the parties if they were ready to proceed with the penalty phase.

Sally's attorney said to the prosecutor and judge, "Do what you want, but we all know whatever the jury decides, Sally will never have to worry about a death penalty. In fact, she's never going to spend a day in jail for this and she'll walk right out of this courtroom after this trial and go home."

The judge and prosecutor looked at each other, understood, and noticed that both Sally and Joan were smiling.

Why can Sally never be imprisoned or executed for killing Dave?

Was this a question on the bar exam?

Let me guess. She was "standing her ground?"

I have to study story more cause I don't know.


TIS