The right to a jury trial

Post Reply New Topic

Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that "[t]he Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury" and the Sixth Amendment says that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial for "petty offenses" that could only subject the defendant to a prison sentence of less than six months. I have read the rationale for this but I disagree. The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions, period. What part of "all" is not clear here? What are your thoughts?

I think the Supreme Court is full of crap.

Another issue is that, contra the explicit statements of the founders, judges and attorneys are now instructing juries that they have to rule based only on whether the defendant broke extant law.
If the founders had wanted expert opinions on whether laws had been broken, they would have specified a jury of lawyers or a panel of judges, experts on law, not a 'jury of the defendant's peers.'

This is small potatoes, the real crime is prosecutors overcharging people in order to force them to take plea bargains, one of the largest perversions of justice currently extant.

California Court Rules Against Jury Nullification

I was on a jury last summer ( worst experience of my life). Most likely I was selected because I avoided eye contact and kept looking at the ground because I couldn't handle being so close to other people. Huge mistake for the lousy excuse for a swine prosecution and defense. Both lawyers wanted the guy to walk and intentionally skimmed past key pieces of evidence. As it turned out I was the only one on the jury to pay attention to the small details. You wouldn't believe how pi$$ed the prosecution and defense looked when the panel returned its verdict. I did discuss with a fellow jury member that we have the right to nullification which surprised him. Everyone seems to think that the Supreme Court has the final say when in reality a jury panel can overrule their verdict and let the defendant walk. I agree that a defendant should be allowed to have a jury trial even for minor offence if it is requested. However, I think jury service should be optional since the current practice conflicts with the 13th amendment. Also, a jury should be informed of nullification and that they cannot convict when there is doubt.

Pain in the ass that it may be at times, I still believe in trial by jury.

They don't empanel a jury for misdemeanors. You get a bench trial then, which is a trial by judge. You can also request a bench trial for felonies if you want, and that's good to do if your defense is only based on technicalities that the judge would rule by, but not the jury.

_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com