Cubic Dollars

[Greg Hermann]

>Expelled, if you are lucky.
>
>A lady in Colorado was recently prosecuted because she failed to reveal
>her intentions to judge the law as well as the case.  She made the mistake
>of discussing this opening in jury deliberations.  Another juror informed
>the judge, and since the judge was interested in writing a book about the
>Fully Informed Jury movement, the judge charged her with some sort of
>misconduct, and I believe she was convicted.

HI--

Yes, this did happen--I live in Steamboat Springs, CO, and it was in the
news here at the time. However, you did not read the fine print! What they
went after her for was for not informing the court of a possible
conflict--not for exercising her rights as a juror. It seems that she was
on the jury for a drug case, and she had pled nolo to a very minor drug
charge about 20 years previously. The prosecutor tried to claim that she
had deliberately concealed the conflict, and had pre-judged the case, but
perjured herself by claiming that she had no conflict in judging the case.
SHE WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR KNOWING OR EXERCISING HER RIGHTS AS A JUROR (no
matter how much the media and the pols, judges, & lawyers wanted everybody
to believe that that was the case!) Whether she got convicted, did a plea
bargain, or got acquitted, I do not recall. The BS that the #@$% holes go
through to avoid having you know your rights as a juror would make slick
proud!!

Which makes me realize--mebbe I should remind our two Senators from CO of
just how trivial and obscure a perjury offense we in Colorado will
prosecute someone for. Perhaps they should weigh the above referenced case
during their deliberations on slick's fate!!!

Perhaps, to be on the safe side, those of us on this list should plead
conflict if ever called to serve as jurors for a speeding ticket trial----
:-)

Regards, Greg
>
>
>>>> Raymond C Drouillard <cosmic.ray at juno.com> 01/26 10:08 PM >>>
>Greg,
>
>That is very interesting.  Where can I get documentation on that fact?  I
>am always interested in what the constitution REALLY says, rather than
>some of the more <ahem> interesting interpretations that I have seen.
>
>The next time I am called to jury duty, I would like to have in my hands
>documentation that I have the right to judge the law as well as the
>defendant.  That would keep me from being forced to convict someone of a
>crime that shouldn't exist.
>
>Of course, the real effect of such paperwork would probablly be to get me
>excused from the jury.  I would need to find a way to keep that from
>happening.
>
>Ray Drouillard
>
>