The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 27, 2010, 12:07 AM   #1
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,364
Hunters on jury

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc...829829/-1/NEWS

There have always been too many games played in the selection of jurors. In this cas e in my county the jury will now include hunters as I think it should.I don't think hunters on the jury automatically will make it easy for the defendant. Some hunters are angry when an irresponsible hunter does damage to other hunters.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 06:53 AM   #2
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,428
The jury should include the hunters as peers, no doubt, assuming they aren't disqualified for other reasons.

I didn't follow why the judge ruled a mistrial AFTER the prosecution had presented arguments. Do you have insight into why the mistrial was called. It seems that if it would have been for reasons of the jury selection, it would have occurred at the beginning of the trial.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 07:32 AM   #3
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
I have not seen enough from the article to indicate who is guilty of what. I have the same question why did the Judge wait so long to declare a mistrial He was present for jury selection and questioning wasn't he?

According to the article neither of the parties requested a mistrial. The judge called for it. If he felt the defendent's attorney was playing shennanigans with the jury why not do it during the impaneling of the jurors?
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 08:03 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,403
Quote:
The jury should include the hunters as peers, ...
Why?

Not that the jury should not include hunters, but our Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to a trial by a jury "of his peers." England has peers. The United States has people. The 6th Amendment states:

Quote:
In 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, ...
No peers mentioned. I wonder if the judge is an English immigrant.

It's also interesting that it was the defense who didn't want hunters on the jury. My guess is that she didn't want anybody on the jury who might harbor strong feelings about hunters who accidentally wander onto other hunters' turf.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; August 27, 2010 at 08:08 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 27, 2010, 08:13 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,336
While not specifically stated as such, the people of the State and district where the crime was committed are the peer referred to in jury of your peers.

This makes the assumption that the people who live where you do are of roughly like circumstances and moral outlook.

The "peers" of England are a specific social class (Peer of the Realm), and are not the common folk of a state or district.

There are seveal definitions of peer, and the one our legal system uses is that of someone from the same area, not that of an exact (or even a close) social and philosophical equal.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 28, 2010, 12:59 AM   #6
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,428
Quote:
Why?

Not that the jury should not include hunters, but our Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to a trial by a jury "of his peers."
Sorry, but I never made any stipulation about what the Constitution says regarding juries and peers. I said that that jury should include hunters as peers. I personally think that juries should be comprised of folks who have an understanding of the types of circumstances surrounding the parameters of the trial. This is often contrary to what lawyers on one or both sides of the trial may think about how the jury should be comprised. Often one or both sides would prefer the jury to be ignorant of salient aspects of the topics pertaining to the case because then the lawyers will have a better chance to guide the jury in the direction preferred. It is often easier to manipulate others when you control the information they receive.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 28, 2010, 06:19 PM   #7
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
A colleague of mine, a PhD in biology, was called for jury duty. It was a case about pollution. One lawyer asked him if he would go only by the evidence presented to him and not use his expertise or discuss that in the jury room.

He said - NO - and guess what - buh, bye!

By the way, don't assume hunters will be on a gun person's side. One study found that hunters were negative on assault weapons as compared to nonhunting folks. The old black gun, sport debate.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 29, 2010, 12:22 AM   #8
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
The judge is an idiot. Batson challenges only apply when jurors are struck because of purposeful discrimination against a member of one of the traditionally protected classes such as race and sex. Hunters are not a protected class.

There is also no constitutional right to a jury of one's peers. That cannot be found in the Constitution. There is only a right to a jury that is impartial and from the vicinity where the crime occurred. From the 6th Amendment itself:

Quote:
. . . 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 . . .
Since the jury was sworn and the mistrial was not at the request of the defendant, there is a good chance that retrial will be barred by the double jeopardy clause. It's not clear cut but he may very well walk free.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07557 seconds with 9 queries