August 27, 2010, 12:07 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
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 ! |
August 27, 2010, 06:53 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
August 27, 2010, 07:32 AM | #3 |
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 |
August 27, 2010, 08:03 PM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,470
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
August 27, 2010, 08:13 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
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. |
August 28, 2010, 12:59 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
August 28, 2010, 06:19 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
August 29, 2010, 12:22 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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:
|
|
|
|