So You Just Got Back from Jury Duty, part 2

So You Just Got Back from Jury Duty, part 1

So You Got Called for Jury Duty

Articles of Freedom, part 8

This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 6 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about property rights. Now I will continue with Article 7, the text of which follows.

Many of the issues raised in this article are interesting, and don’t necessarily disagree with them, but I must admit that I am have not educated myself enough on these issues to make a definite endorsement of all of them. Concerning the right to a common law jury, I would say that this is a very difficult issue for me. I don’t exactly see a right to a “common law” jury in the seventh amendment. It reads:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

First of all, I question whether or not the phase “In Suits at common law” (or even the twenty dollar clause) extends to the entire sentence or if “no fact…” was meant to stand by itself. If the former, then the whole thing only applies to Suits which already common law suits, and not other suits whether they are civil or criminal.

Of course, any criminal case the right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. (Why didn’t they use it since it’s so much more obvious?) Furthermore, due process rights are guaranteed by the fifth amendment in cases where one’s life, liberty, or property is at stake, (but this does not necessarily mean that there has to be a jury). But I am not knowledgeable enough to understand what the difference is between common law juries and ordinary petit juries which are in common use today, or if this is even something that the authors were intentionally trying convey.

The idea of “empower[ing] [grand juries] to authorize any citizen of their choice to prosecute a case” is interesting and I don’t see anything wrong with it, but I’m not sure it’s constitutionally necessary.

The rest of the ideas are very good and very necessary, especially nullification and the idea of requiring that the jury be informed of their right to nullify the law.

ARTICLE 7.

JURIES AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT

A. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The Delegates representing forty-eight of the several States in Continental Congress assembled, being fully apprised in the premises, find that:

1. The American People are the American Sovereign;

2. As sovereign, the American People have the last say on the law;

3. American Citizens are called to sit on both Grand and Petit Juries;

4. In their capacity as jurors, the American people have the power, and the duty, to judge both the law and the facts;

B. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CONGRESS

1. Amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require judges to apprise all plaintiffs and defendants of their right under the 7^th Amendment to a common law jury; and

2. Amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require judges to apprise all defendants of their right under the 7^th Amendment to a common law jury; and

3. Amend the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure to require all judges, in cases where the United States is a party to the case, to apprise all jurors of the judge’s conflict of interest; and

4. Amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide for trials authorized only by indictments or presentments by independent, randomly empanelled citizens’ common law grand juries, accessible to any individual having a complaint, and empowered to authorize any citizen of their choice to prosecute a case.

C. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO EACH OF THE SEVERAL STATES

1. Amend the rules governing civil and criminal cases to require judges to apprise plaintiffs and defendants of their right under the 7^th Amendment to a common law jury;

2. Amend the rules governing civil and criminal cases to require all judges, in cases where the State is a party to the case, to apprise all jurors of the judge’s conflict of interest.

D. RECOMMENDED CIVIC ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE

1. When appointed to a jury, throw off the restraints of judicial tyranny by refusing to capitulate to any judicial instruction to judge only the facts; and

2. When appointed to a jury, demand to have all issues of law argued in the presence of the jury, and have the last say by judging the law;

3. Educate your family, friends, and community to learn about the Fully Informed Jury Association (“FIJA”), and the power of judging the law as well as the accused.

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

Click here to read about income tax in the next article in this series.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 14

Continue viewing this video at the following links:

part 2

part 3

This is part fourteen of an ongoing series of articles containing my proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Here is my fourteenth proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: In all criminal prosecutions and Suits at common law, the right of the jury to judge the law and well as the fact of the matter shall not be infringed.

Section 2: The jury shall be informed of the right to nullify the law before any such case shall proceed.

Section 3: No Person shall be compelled against their will to serve on a jury and all jurors shall receive just compensation for performance of their duties.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

This would help to keep big government from enforcing unjust laws. We live in a day and age when laws are passed by legislators who do not even read their content. I believe that we already have these rights, but since they are being violated, it is good to explicitly place them into the Constitution.

Click here to read the next article in this series.

Is justice really blind in our courts?

I was on jury duty last week. After being transferred from the Grand Jury to the Petit Jury, I was called with 15 other potential jurors to a courtroom for Voir Dire. Eight of us sat in the jury box and eight sat behind the litigants. The judge asked us if we knew any of the litigants or any lawyers in the case or any lawyers that worked for the same law firm as any of the lawyers in the case. The case was a civil lawsuit, having to do with an automobile accident and medical bills which were allegedly caused by the accident.

Then the plaintiff’s attorney asked if anyone had sued, been sued, had an injury that required surgery, had physical therapy, and other such questions. If anyone said yes, then they asked more specific questions, some very personal. He also asked more questions about any connections to the legal profession that anyone had. One man said his brother was a lawyer and another juror was a legal secretary.

The defense attorney kept asking us a question about whether or not we would think that it is possible for someone to exaggerate an injury in order to win a case. The plaintiff’s attorney kept objecting, and the defense attorney kept rephrasing it. A side bar was called, the defense attorney rephrased the question again, and the plaintiff’s attorney objected again. This was an obvious ploy by the defense to plant an idea in our heads. He knew that it would be objected to and sustained.

Each lawyer seemed to try to act like they didn’t know what they were doing in order to gain our sympathy, clamoring for every inch of advantage. How pathetic.

Then the defense attorney asked us more such questions. He asked me about my occupation. I gave a technical answer about what I do (I am a scientist). One juror asked to speak with the lawyers and the judge in private and when they were done, the judge said that this juror was dismissed “with cause”. One of the other eight potential jurors was called to replace him. Then each attorney grilled this juror as they had done us.

Each attorney was allowed to remove up to three jurors without giving a reason (a peremptory challenge). The plaintiff’s attorney declined this opportunity, but the defense attorney challenged the man whose brother was a lawyer. Then I was the next to go.

I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. The judge’s questions were reasonable for the most part. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.