fincher's case and juror's rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

taliv

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
28,765
yeah, another thread on this topic that art will probably close after a few posts, because gun nuts aren't proving to be more nuts than guns these days...

but this article http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/01/02/news/123006fzfincher.txt
makes some interesting points that i didn't see discussed.

FAYETTEVILLE -- A man charged with possessing illegal machine guns shouldn't be able to make constitutional arguments at trial, according to a motion filed Friday by federal prosecutors.

Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, a lieutenant commander of the Militia of Washington County, is charged in U.S. District Court with possessing three homemade, unregistered machine guns and an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.

Trial is set for Jan. 8 in Fayetteville.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson filed the motion asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to preclude Fincher and his attorney, Oscar Stilley, from arguing matters of law to the jury as a defense. The government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional and that the prosecution must prove an "interstate nexus" for the firearms, according to the motion.

The government is arguing that it is the court's role to decide matters of law and to instruct the jury. The jury's role is to then determine and apply the facts to the law as instructed by the court. The jury has no role in deciding legal issues, according to the motion.

The government also wants the court to order Fincher to disclose items the defense intends to use as evidence at trial, the results of any physical or mental examinations or experiments to be used at trial and provide written summaries of witness testimony the defense intends to use.
Click to expand...

this case will potentially decide TWO fatal issues. it's bad enough that the federal government doesn't respect the 2A or constitution in general, but they're apparently also trying to (I assume) set a precedent against "juror's rights".

I could be wrong (there may already be precedent against it) but while I can't fault fincher for fighting for his rights, i doubt he has the wherewithall to successfully fight the government's argument that the jury has no role in deciding legal issues.

that means that as a juror, you'll only be able to say that "he made a machine gun" is or is not a fact. and duh, everybody knows he made machine guns. you won't be able to say "that law against making machine guns is illegal".

edit: one of you lawyers correct me if i'm wrong, but the gov wouldn't be arguing the roles of the court and jury if that was already firmly decided, right?
 
I think threads about this guy are totally gun related. I kind of suspect he might have a personal history with some of the moderators, or something like that, and that's why his treads get closed quickly.
 
A juror's job is to decide whether or not the defendent did or didn't break the law, as the law is currently written. They have no more right to "legislate" than a judge does.
 
The CONSTITUTION is law, in fact it's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Jury fully has the right to determine if a person's actions were Constitutional or not. To say otherwise is to abandon the principles or American freedom and liberty.
 
The jury's ancient right is not only to determine the facts of the case, but also the justness of the law itself.

A jury is also within its rights to acquit if they percieve a miscarriage of justice, in that they agree that the defendendant factually transgressed what would normally be a just law, but found some extraordinary circumstances such that a conviction would be inconsistent with justice.

I'm normally chalk stuff up to cockup rather than conspiracy, but in the case of the erosion of the role of the jury in preserving the free, just character of our nation, I'm leaning WAY over towards conspiracy.

The denigration of the rights of the jury to acquit is the result of ignorance fostered by inadequate education, and outright judicial suppression.
 
The CONSTITUTION is law, in fact it's the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Jury fully has the right to determine if a person's actions were Constitutional or not. To say otherwise is to abandon the principles or American freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think this is yet another method of trying to exert control over the American people. "You leave the governing up to Nanny Government." :rolleyes: :banghead: Nevermind the fact that the government is supposed to SERVE the people (i.e. listen to us and do what we say, not vice versa).

A juror's job is to decide whether or not the defendent did or didn't break the law, as the law is currently written. They have no more right to "legislate" than a judge does.
Click to expand...

And yet judges attempt to "legislate" all the time. They pass and overturn laws left and do things that fly in the face of the Constitution. The legal system needs to be neutered a bit.
 
Jury Power

So far, not even the powerful reach of Federal or State prosecutors and law enforcement can punish a jury for a verdict. The JURY is the final check on excessive power by the government. We have let them bluff and threaten us out of most of the power a jury has, but so far, (and folks on a jury with you will argue that it's not true), a jury can do whatever it wants without fear of being punished for it's decisions.

And yes, Citizens on a jury can and should decide the case and the law. It is their duty.

I, for one, as a juror, will NEVER judge a person guilty of breaking a law that is in conflict with the United States Bill of Rights, no matter what my personal opinion. That would be immoral.
 
When a British judge ORDERED his jury to convict some Catholics of practicing their religion, the jury rebelled. The judge sent them ALL to jail. But those 12 jurors changed the shape of law from then on, they're really heros.

Hence forth jurors have a duty to be reasonable, NOT to do what a judge tells them.
 
deadin said:
A juror's job is to decide whether or not the defendent did or didn't break the law, as the law is currently written. They have no more right to "legislate" than a judge does.
Click to expand...

The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, John Jay, once stated, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." If you brought this up in a modern court, however, you'd probably be found in contempt of court and thrown in a jail cell.
 
Schooling

I went to school. Nearly 40 years ago

I took history. And government. And civics.

Somehow, even back then, students were not taught the fundamentals of one of their most solemn duties as citizens.

If they weren't teaching us how to be jurors 40 years ago, and the standards in schools have done nothing but decline since then . . .

. . . then they surely aren't teaching it today.

Funny. You would have thought, given the times, that the Berkeley-educated crowd would have seen to this. Civil rights and all that stuff.

The Berkeley crowd, however, with age, has only vested ever more power in those who would oppress.

Ironic.
 
So far, not even the powerful reach of Federal or State prosecutors and law enforcement can punish a jury for a verdict. The JURY is the final check on excessive power by the government. We have let them bluff and threaten us out of most of the power a jury has, but so far, (and folks on a jury with you will argue that it's not true), a jury can do whatever it wants without fear of being punished for it's decisions.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Familiarize yourself with the case of one Laura Kriho. In breif, she was a lone hold out in a meth possesion case. A mistrial was declared, and later chargsd were brought against Laura Kriho for contempt and perjury since she had not disclosed a past conviction that she was informed as been purged, information she had not been asked about during jury selection.

http://www.ndsn.org/dec96/kriho.html
 
We're talking about "Jury Nullification", something the courts do not want the common people exercising (and lawyers are pretty well versed in picking their jury candidates from jury pools who express a knowledge of such).

See SkunkApes fija.org link.

I'm surprised the .gov hasn't just claimed Fincher a terror(ist) threat and thrown away all due process. The current admin has opened that Pandora's box for future administrations use and I see no courts, so far, backing down on that one... yet.
 
I could be wrong (there may already be precedent against it) but while I can't fault fincher for fighting for his rights, i doubt he has the wherewithall to successfully fight the government's argument that the jury has no role in deciding legal issues.

that means that as a juror, you'll only be able to say that "he made a machine gun" is or is not a fact. and duh, everybody knows he made machine guns. you won't be able to say "that law against making machine guns is illegal".
Click to expand...
Do a search on "jury nullification" and you'll find numerous articles commenting on the fact that for quite some time judges have been giving precisely these instructions to juries: "I decide the law, you [the jury] decide on the facts." That does NOT in any way cancel the constitutional right of each juror to decide on both the facts AND the law. That right is fundamental to our legal system.

The only catch is that jurors can't really say that's what they're doing. It onlt takes one juror to hang the jury. If even one understands his/her rights and doesn't buy into this line of bovine excrement, all he/she needs to do is vote "Not Guilty as charged" and it's all over. It may make a lot of people unhappy, but judges are not entitled to inquire as to why a juror voted as they voted.
 
cassandrasdaddy said:
directed verdict
Click to expand...
Judges cannot direct a jury to convict. All they can do is see that the prosecution's case is so weak that a trial would be a waste of everyone's time, and direct the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty.
 
i'm very familiar with jury nulification, aguila, i just didn't know if there was case law supporting it yet
 
I'm looking forward to the outcome of this trial, and I hope we will end up quoting US v Fincher for some time to come as a plain statment on the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

But I have a very bad feeling it will turn into another Miller decision, close but oh so far away from what it should be...

Does anyone know what the new evidence about other firearms that is to be presented by the prosecution is about? I've heard something of him with a sten he built as well, wonder if this further evidence will be more or the same or what. I hope there are not other charges that could be brought that cloud the issue.

I hope something like the judge heavily restricting what the jury can consider doesn't derail the whole thing too.

Whatever the decision, from what I've read so far Fincher is either very brave or very crazy. He has done what I have hoped someone would do for a long time (as I don't have the balls, plain and simple). That is he is standing up and directly challenging the machinegun "registration"/ban nonesense without involving a bunch of other crimes like every other test case I can recall. From what I can tell all he did was build unregistered full autos and a shorter than legal shotgun and said "come get em". I wish him all the best for his own sake, and selfishly I hope it ends up being a huge victory on a wider scale too. I figure I'll be disappointed on both sides but here's hoping...
 
I've spoken with a friend who frequents Nevada courts, and they have informed me that potential jurors are explicitly asked (by the lawyers? I forget) if they will find a verdict based solely on the law.

It makes me angry and completely undermines the purpose of a jury.
 
I've spoken with a friend who frequents Nevada courts, and they have informed me that potential jurors are explicitly asked (by the lawyers? I forget) if they will find a verdict based solely on the law.

It makes me angry and completely undermines the purpose of a jury.
Click to expand...


um, that is the sole purpose of the jury..The judge holds his hearings on legal arguments regarding the constitutionality before trial and sometime during trial, but out or earshot of the jury..Jurys have made statments by aquitting those that were obviously guilty, ie O.J. but they cannot change the law.....and those who havnt lied during Voir Dire are weeded out to prevent thier real function by changing legislation from the bench, err jury box...:D
 
Not quite. Familiarize yourself with the case of one Laura Kriho. In breif, she was a lone hold out in a meth possesion case. A mistrial was declared, and later chargsd were brought against Laura Kriho for contempt and perjury since she had not disclosed a past conviction that she was informed as been purged, information she had not been asked about during jury selection.

http://www.ndsn.org/dec96/kriho.html
Click to expand...


However, the Kriho case was finally overturned after making it to the Colorado Supreme Court...... See: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm for a history.
 
I've spoken with a friend who frequents Nevada courts, and they have informed me that potential jurors are explicitly asked (by the lawyers? I forget) if they will find a verdict based solely on the law.
Click to expand...
If somebody is smart enough to understand the concept of "jury nullification," they ought to be smart enough to understand that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land. So they can truthfully answer "yes" to this question, and then vote their conscience in the jury room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
8th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Hollis Wayne Fincher Conviction
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ServiceSoon
S
2
  • Locked
Great Moments in Jurisprudence
Replies
21
Views
1K
Raymond VanDerLinden
R
K
  • Locked
Jury Duty and Gun Trials
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Libertyteeth
L
T
  • Locked
jury nullification
Replies
13
Views
1K
Nicky Santoro
N
V
  • Locked
Jury Nullification
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Aguila Blanca
A
Back
Top