Comments on: “You want it to be one way … but it’s the other way.” http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Mon, 12 May 2008 22:26:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Enough already http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-85790 Enough already Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:44:36 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-85790 Ok, all you blow hards have shot your legal knowledge wad on this! Can someone tell me how any case where any substance is being considered criminal and used to prosecute and others substances aren't with the same side effects or worse is not considered DISCRIMINATION? Ok, all you blow hards have shot your legal knowledge wad on this! Can someone tell me how any case where any substance is being considered criminal and used to prosecute and others substances aren’t with the same side effects or worse is not considered DISCRIMINATION?

]]> By: S. Thompson http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83631 S. Thompson Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:03:27 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83631 As a young prosecutor, I would bet that Mr. Anonymous Prosecutor here is also a young prosecutor. It is surprisingly easy to forget that the mere title of "Prosecutor" can transform your idiotic 3 a.m. ramblings into a national controversy. I agree with Radley that this particular prosecutor was suggesting that the Wire's authors could be prosecuted for their comments if they were made in Texas. However, the suggestion is, frankly, laughable. I can guarantee you that Mr. Anonymous couldn't get those charges past his own superiors in the D.A.'s Office, much less a trial judge or an appellate court. It is horribly irresponsible for a prosecutor to make casual comments in public about prosecuting anyone, because speaking as a "prosecutor" means you're speaking with all of the power and authority of your office. If I made unauthorized public statements like that, I would be fired immediately, no questions asked. Mr. Anonymous had better hope that he remains anonymous. As a young prosecutor, I would bet that Mr. Anonymous Prosecutor here is also a young prosecutor. It is surprisingly easy to forget that the mere title of “Prosecutor” can transform your idiotic 3 a.m. ramblings into a national controversy. I agree with Radley that this particular prosecutor was suggesting that the Wire’s authors could be prosecuted for their comments if they were made in Texas. However, the suggestion is, frankly, laughable. I can guarantee you that Mr. Anonymous couldn’t get those charges past his own superiors in the D.A.’s Office, much less a trial judge or an appellate court. It is horribly irresponsible for a prosecutor to make casual comments in public about prosecuting anyone, because speaking as a “prosecutor” means you’re speaking with all of the power and authority of your office. If I made unauthorized public statements like that, I would be fired immediately, no questions asked. Mr. Anonymous had better hope that he remains anonymous.

]]> By: markm http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83442 markm Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:07:26 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83442 "If this guy can look at a magazine article advocating a jury power that dates back to the founding of the country and see a crime, one could be forgiven for looking at his blog post and seeing a man who lacks the proper temperament, good judgment, and respect for civil liberties to continue to serve as a prosecutor." Actually, I think he has demonstrated such appalling ignorance of the foundations of the American legal system that he should not be a lawyer. “If this guy can look at a magazine article advocating a jury power that dates back to the founding of the country and see a crime, one could be forgiven for looking at his blog post and seeing a man who lacks the proper temperament, good judgment, and respect for civil liberties to continue to serve as a prosecutor.” Actually, I think he has demonstrated such appalling ignorance of the foundations of the American legal system that he should not be a lawyer.

]]> By: Social Memory Complex » Quote of the Day http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83414 Social Memory Complex » Quote of the Day Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:25:30 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83414 [...] it’s about jury nullification. Via Radley Balko I found this post guest blogged by a Texas prosecutor who claims jury nullification is manifestly [...] [...] it’s about jury nullification. Via Radley Balko I found this post guest blogged by a Texas prosecutor who claims jury nullification is manifestly [...]

]]> By: Paul http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83044 Paul Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:38:13 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83044 Wonder what McNulty would say if he were real Wonder what McNulty would say if he were real

]]> By: John http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83027 John Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:51:59 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83027 The whole notion of trial by jury is clearly intended as a check on the power of judges and prosecutors. When a case comes to trial, the prosecutor has already come to two conclusion. They must believe the defendant is guilty, and they must also believe that their crime warrants punishment. The judge is the first check on these conclusions, being able to dismiss a case or, when not bound by mandatory minimums, decide appropriate punishment. It's completely reasonable that both these checks extend to the jury. While a jury must decide the guilt of a defendant, it should also be charged with deciding whether or not the charges warrant punishment. In the case where a law is unreasonable or unconstitutional, the jury has the right and the duty to nullify. It's clear that throughout judicial history, jurys are often asked to decide if a law is reasonable. Of course prosecutors have a check on jurors, being able to strike them. But where does that leave us who would vote to nullify? Lying under oath about your willingness to nullify is still a crime. I would not go so far as to advocate perjury, but is clearly is within our rights to convince as many people as possible to be willing to nullify. If enough prospective jurors admit this, the prosecutor will simply be unable to strike them all. Convincing these people of their rights could be as simple as making sure judges instruct them that they do have this right. That should be the focus. The whole notion of trial by jury is clearly intended as a check on the power of judges and prosecutors. When a case comes to trial, the prosecutor has already come to two conclusion. They must believe the defendant is guilty, and they must also believe that their crime warrants punishment. The judge is the first check on these conclusions, being able to dismiss a case or, when not bound by mandatory minimums, decide appropriate punishment. It’s completely reasonable that both these checks extend to the jury. While a jury must decide the guilt of a defendant, it should also be charged with deciding whether or not the charges warrant punishment. In the case where a law is unreasonable or unconstitutional, the jury has the right and the duty to nullify. It’s clear that throughout judicial history, jurys are often asked to decide if a law is reasonable.

Of course prosecutors have a check on jurors, being able to strike them. But where does that leave us who would vote to nullify? Lying under oath about your willingness to nullify is still a crime. I would not go so far as to advocate perjury, but is clearly is within our rights to convince as many people as possible to be willing to nullify. If enough prospective jurors admit this, the prosecutor will simply be unable to strike them all. Convincing these people of their rights could be as simple as making sure judges instruct them that they do have this right. That should be the focus.

]]> By: overzealous-texas-prosecutor-claims-advocating-jury-nullification-is-crime | Popehat http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83022 overzealous-texas-prosecutor-claims-advocating-jury-nullification-is-crime | Popehat Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:24:33 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83022 [...] The Agitator, whose comments on this are well worth [...] [...] The Agitator, whose comments on this are well worth [...]

]]> By: Texas-prosecutor-argues-advocating-jury-nullification-is-a-crime-slept-through-first-amendment-in-con-law | Popehat http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83021 Texas-prosecutor-argues-advocating-jury-nullification-is-a-crime-slept-through-first-amendment-in-con-law | Popehat Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:13:57 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83021 [...] The Agitator, whose comments on this are well worth [...] [...] The Agitator, whose comments on this are well worth [...]

]]> By: pris http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83020 pris Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:11:21 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83020 A lawyer friend read the prosecutor's remarks and this is his interpretation of the prosecutor's remarks. Okay. I've read what the lawyer actually said. It seems he doesn't think the Wire people don't have a right to advocate it - but a juror who takes an oath to uphold the law would be committing perjury by taking the oath and then voting to nullilfy. I don't agree with that position either. A lawyer friend read the prosecutor’s remarks and this is his interpretation of the prosecutor’s remarks.

Okay. I’ve read what the lawyer actually said.

It seems he doesn’t think the Wire people don’t have a right to advocate it - but a juror who takes an oath to uphold the law would be committing perjury by taking the oath and then voting to nullilfy.

I don’t agree with that position either.

]]> By: Randy Bean http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83015 Randy Bean Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:53:27 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83015 If memory serves me correctly, the concerted attack on jury nullification mostly began during alcohol prohibition (unjust law, natch). There were many juries that couldn't, in good conscience, sentence someone to prison for doing something that only days (or weeks or months or a few years) earlier was completely legal. During this time is when many states added or changed the oaths jurors were taking, trying to "nullify" jury nullification. It's sad that so many of the people who are charged with the administration of justice (legislators, prosecutors and judges) have such a narrow view of justice. It shouldn't be any wonder that unjust laws (drugs prohibitions) lead to further injustices as time marches on. If memory serves me correctly, the concerted attack on jury nullification mostly began during alcohol prohibition (unjust law, natch). There were many juries that couldn’t, in good conscience, sentence someone to prison for doing something that only days (or weeks or months or a few years) earlier was completely legal.

During this time is when many states added or changed the oaths jurors were taking, trying to “nullify” jury nullification. It’s sad that so many of the people who are charged with the administration of justice (legislators, prosecutors and judges) have such a narrow view of justice.

It shouldn’t be any wonder that unjust laws (drugs prohibitions) lead to further injustices as time marches on.

]]> By: Dennis http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83009 Dennis Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:00:15 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-83009 By fighting our right to jury nullification and requiring oaths and penalties, I believe that judges, prosecutors and legislators collude to commit FRAUD upon the American public. I can't wait until we start going after criminal judges, prosecutors and legislators. I see many law suits against cities, counties and law enforcement, but the real criminals, the ones driving the criminal activity against American citizens, are herein mentioned above. By fighting our right to jury nullification and requiring oaths and penalties, I believe that judges, prosecutors and legislators collude to commit FRAUD upon the American public. I can’t wait until we start going after criminal judges, prosecutors and legislators. I see many law suits against cities, counties and law enforcement, but the real criminals, the ones driving the criminal activity against American citizens, are herein mentioned above.

]]> By: David http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82997 David Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:09:30 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82997 So jury nullification inherently involves perjury...but isn't that just because the attorneys screen out nullifiers when vetting potential jurors, which means that an advocate would have to lie during <I>voir dire</I> to get onto a jury? So he's against it because it's illegal, but it's only illegal because he (and other DAs) is against it. So jury nullification inherently involves perjury…but isn’t that just because the attorneys screen out nullifiers when vetting potential jurors, which means that an advocate would have to lie during voir dire to get onto a jury? So he’s against it because it’s illegal, but it’s only illegal because he (and other DAs) is against it.

]]> By: Lee http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82996 Lee Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:09:02 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82996 'Would there be any way to differentiate between a not guilty verdict and a nullification?" That is my question. Look at that Amarillo veridct. How do we know it was not a nullified jury? Has a jury member told us? ‘Would there be any way to differentiate between a not guilty verdict and a nullification?”

That is my question.

Look at that Amarillo veridct. How do we know it was not a nullified jury? Has a jury member told us?

]]> By: CK http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82995 CK Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:01:09 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82995 It would be a hoot to see jury nulliification adjudicated by a jury. Would the jury nullify? Would there be any way to differentiate between a not guilty verdict and a nullification? It would be a hoot to see jury nulliification adjudicated by a jury.
Would the jury nullify?
Would there be any way to differentiate between a not guilty verdict and a nullification?

]]> By: Joe http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82992 Joe Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:40:48 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82992 Be careful what you wish for. Do you REALLY want THIS Supreme Court, with its record actually deciding this issue? Be careful what you wish for. Do you REALLY want THIS Supreme Court, with its record actually deciding this issue?

]]> By: Jason http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82987 Jason Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:05:13 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82987 Carcetti's behind this somehow. Carcetti’s behind this somehow.

]]> By: Edintally http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82984 Edintally Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:37:13 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82984 Mark Bennett is a criminal defense lawyer in Houston, Texas. Maybe that will help with some of the confusion? I found The Agitator and Mark's Blog at about the same time and can tell you that you and he share a lot of common ground. Mark Bennett is a criminal defense lawyer in Houston, Texas.

Maybe that will help with some of the confusion? I found The Agitator and Mark’s Blog at about the same time and can tell you that you and he share a lot of common ground.

]]> By: Greg N. http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82980 Greg N. Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:22:17 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82980 (Are you in Texas, William?) (Are you in Texas, William?)

]]> By: C Bernat http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82979 C Bernat Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:21:22 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82979 For some reason, I can't get the expression "little Eichman" out of my mind. For some reason, I can’t get the expression “little Eichman” out of my mind.

]]> By: William Bennett http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82977 William Bennett Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:08:06 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/27/you-want-it-to-be-one-way-but-its-the-other-way/#comment-82977 I approve of jury nullification, and would nullify if given the chance, and I am encouraging all of you to do so, especially those of you serving on juries, and particularly those of you serving on juries in Texas. There I said it. Come and get me! I approve of jury nullification, and would nullify if given the chance, and I am encouraging all of you to do so, especially those of you serving on juries, and particularly those of you serving on juries in Texas.

There I said it. Come and get me!

]]>