I doubt if all of those convicted murderers being set free are not guilty twenty years after being convicted. There is too much room for bribery and tampering with evidence to convince me that so many prosecutors made so many mistakes. Or maybe juries made all of those mistakes which does not say much for the jury system.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426
Whenever the anti-death penalty crowd cannot find bribery, or tampering with evidence, they fallback on Supreme Court judges playing the race card:
Curtis Giovanni Flowers
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court struck down a black inmate’s murder convictions and death sentence because the white man who prosecuted him on behalf of Mississippi unconstitutionally excluded blacks from the jury at his final trial and at others that preceded it.
Curtis Giovanni Flowers (pictured above), 49, was condemned to death for murdering four employees of the now-closed Tardy Furniture store during a 1996 robbery in Winona, Mississippi, a small town with a population of 5,000.
Three of Flowers’s victims were white; one was black. Two trials ended in hung juries. Convictions from three trials were reversed because prosecutor Doug Evans, a Democrat, violated Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 Supreme Court decision that forbids a state from using its peremptory challenges to exclude jurors because of their race. A peremptory challenge is one that a lawyer doesn’t have to justify in court.
Curtis Giovanni Flowers (pictured above), 49, was condemned to death for murdering four employees of the now-closed Tardy Furniture store during a 1996 robbery in Winona, Mississippi, a small town with a population of 5,000.
Three of Flowers’s victims were white; one was black. Two trials ended in hung juries. Convictions from three trials were reversed because prosecutor Doug Evans, a Democrat, violated Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 Supreme Court decision that forbids a state from using its peremptory challenges to exclude jurors because of their race. A peremptory challenge is one that a lawyer doesn’t have to justify in court.
Supreme Court strikes down murder convictions on grounds of racial bias
By Matthew Vadum
June 25, 2019
https://canadafreepress.com/article...-murder-convictions-on-grounds-of-racial-bias
By Matthew Vadum
June 25, 2019
https://canadafreepress.com/article...-murder-convictions-on-grounds-of-racial-bias
A lot of jury verdicts are overturned on appeal. There is one overriding reason to eliminate every vestige of participation in the hands of juries. Absolute control over the administration of the law generates income for the second oldest profession. Lawyers losing any part of control is a threat to the incomes throughout the legal profession.
NOTE: Prostitution is the oldest profession. A cynic might say that lawyers were the first pimps.
Back in December 2015 I commented on Keith Wood’s case that was being ignored by television mouths who should have given it some coverage. Surely, talking heads pontificating in the MSM could have taken a few minutes from the endless hours about election polls eliciting groans from everybody “Oh God, not again.” Left-leaning media stuck with polls that nobody believed or cared about. I expected, and got, a wall of silence surrounding Wood’s appeal.
Here are some observations from a message on another board in 2015:
Just days after a judge in Denver ordered all charges against two men accused of jury tampering for handing out informational booklets dismissed, a defense attorney for a Michigan man facing such a charge wants it dismissed, too.
XXXXX
The pamphlets Wood was handing out to the public were “informational pamphlets” that were being given to members of the public “on a public sidewalk.” Kallman’s statement said they’re about “the power of jurors to vote their conscience in any case, as permitted by Michigan’s Criminal Jury Instructions.”
“Conscience” is the crux of the argument:
The brochure informs readers: “You may, and should, vote your conscience; You cannot be forced to obey a ‘juror’s oath’; You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”
A juror is not supposed to vote his conscience, while our self-appointed spiritual leader did everything based on his conscience. The Chicago sewer rat ignored laws although his oath of office demanded the opposite. He wrote unlawful EOs, and ordered his bureaucrats to write and enforce regulations that deny everybody else a day in court.
7. EPA’s Clean Power Plan. In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, on August 3, 2015, it announced a final rule. It gives states until 2018 — it “encourages” September 2016 — to develop final plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022. EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for the Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111(d) doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, as those deriving from coal-fired plants are.
8. EPA’s Clean Water Rule. On May 27, 2015, EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the definition of that word.
9. EPA’s cap-and-trade. On October 23, 2015, EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. The focus is on cap-and-trade as the means to meet the limits. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or from lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this new regulation contradicts the express will of Congress.
8. EPA’s Clean Water Rule. On May 27, 2015, EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the definition of that word.
9. EPA’s cap-and-trade. On October 23, 2015, EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. The focus is on cap-and-trade as the means to meet the limits. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or from lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this new regulation contradicts the express will of Congress.
President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015
By Ilya Shapiro — December 23, 2015
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/428882/print
By Ilya Shapiro — December 23, 2015
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/428882/print
Can you imagine what would happen to EPA regulations levying fines, dictating the use of private property, confiscating private property, etc., if those cases had to face an uncontrolled jury?
Bottom line: Jurors must never tell the government what it cannot do, while collectivist judges can only govern by telling the American people what they must do.
The brochure Wood was handing out, which comes from the Fully Informed Jury Association, from Montana, explains, “Judges only rarely ‘fully inform’ jurors of their rights, especially their right to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience. In fact, judges regularly assist the prosecution by dismissing prospective jurors who will admit knowing about this right – beginning with anyone who also admits having qualms with the law.”
Jury-nullification activist: Let's ask jurors if I 'tampered'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/19/2015 @ 7:17 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2015/12/jury-nullification-activist-lets-ask-jurors-if-i-tampered/
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/19/2015 @ 7:17 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2015/12/jury-nullification-activist-lets-ask-jurors-if-i-tampered/
Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave, and they do it without benefit of legislation. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.
There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.
I long-suspected that the government puts at least one double-agent on the jury in important cases. Such a person needs the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. Example: Labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting.
Also, a government plant could notify the judge when an hard-nosed juror had to be replaced under one pretext or another.
A hung jury is the government’s fallback strategy.
Nothing is going to eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in nullifying the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave irrespective of an occasional victory for the good guys:
A federal appeals court in Denver has affirmed a ruling allowing the distribution of pamphlets about jury nullification – defined as a verdict on the law itself rather than on the defendant – to their “intended audience,” the jurors.
Judges give big boost to 'jury nullification' pamphleteers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/14/2016 @ 8:47 pm
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/judges-give-big-boost-to-jury-nullification-pamphleteers/
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/14/2016 @ 8:47 pm
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/judges-give-big-boost-to-jury-nullification-pamphleteers/
In every election cycle media spends half of their coverage trying to increase the number of Americans who vote. The entertainment industry produces countless movies and TV shows extolling the power of juries in criminal cases. In real life the government controls the outcome of elections 99 percent of the time —— 100 percent in jury trials.
In real life judges/lawyers do not give a rat’s ass what jurors think or decide.
See number 8 permalink in this thread:
Here is another lawyer commandment that needs repealing:
BLACKSTONE’S RATIO
BLACKSTONE’S RATIO
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426
All of the legal bullshit lawyers have been spreading around for hundreds of years could not sell the myth that says jury verdicts are sacrosanct. If it was left to me I would do away with the jury system and let government judges decide every case. They do it anyway. In short: Do away with juries and Americans would finally see that the administration of law is rotten to the core with or without juries.
Finally, how about giving my suggestion a chance to trump the race card.
Black judges and all-black jurors hearing every case where a black man is accused of killing a white man.
White judges and all-white jurors hearing every case where a white man is accused of killing a black man.
My suggestion will not guarantee verdicts decided by evidence, but it sure as hell will provide an equal playing field.
Alas, whites not playing by the same rules black racists laid down a long time ago is a flaw in my suggestion. In short: Touchy-feely judges will always let blacks like Curtis Giovanni Flowers beat the rap on appeal, while a white perp will always get strapped to a gurney.
