These days so many governments around the planet seem to be having a lot of trouble following their own rules, and seem to believe in selective enforcement, this section is here to try to help people find ways (preferably non-violent ways) to survive the tyranny.
Note: Anyone can read this forum, only registered users may post or reply to messages.
Perhaps things have always been this way and I am just now starting to see it. As another section of what made The Untied States of America a great nation is destroyed.
It seems these days from Law enforcement officials to judges that the rules and laws that should be followed are now nothing more than meaningless words on a piece of paper. Much like tyrants that make and break laws to suit their selfish whims.
In this case it disturbs me greatly that that the government (government appointed judges) can simply ignore the verdict/decision of the jury and declare guild or innocence of the defendant based on what the judges believes verdict should be.
This is truly scary as it means that when a jury finds a person not guilty (for instance because of blatantly trumped up or false charges) that the judge can overrule that verdict and still sentence the defendant as if they had been found guilty.
On the other it could mean that if the jury should find a government employee guilty of premeditated murder the judge can simply find the government defendant not guilty.
These are truly scary times.
For when there is no justice or laws that apply to and are enforced on everyone equally, there is no longer a healthy society it is just a fight for survival.
http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-e ... -verdicts/
Out-Of-Control Judges … Overturning Not-Guilty Jury Verdicts?
Written by: Daniel Jennings
July 24, 2014
Judges could maintain the right simply to throw out jury verdicts they don’t like under a case currently being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case involves three men who were sentenced to 19 years in prison even though a jury had found them not-guilty of major drug charges. The judge’s action, critics say, ignores the Constitution’s protection of a trial by jury.
“Sentencing then becomes the real trial, with the judge being given carte blanche to engage as factfinder,” attorneys for the Rutherford Institute and the Cato Institute wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief for the three men. “This is constitutionally improper. Instead, the conviction must fall or stand with the jury to be ‘the lawful judgment of his peers.’”
The attorneys are appealing sentences that US District Judge Richard Roberts gave to three Washington, D.C. men in 2011. A jury found Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston and Antwuan Bell not guilty of a variety of conspiracy charges in 2008 but did convict them of possessing small amounts of cocaine. Three years later Roberts sentenced the men as if each was guilty of conspiracy charges and in possession of 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, because he felt evidence indicated that they were guilty.
How Federal Judges Can Ignore Juries
The problem with Roberts’ ruling is that the jury found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of the conspiracy. Evidence indicates – and the jury agreed — that each of the men was carrying only a few ounces of crack when arrested, Rutherford and Cato say.
The True Christian Heritage and Christian Ideals That Are Woven Into The Very Fabric Of The Constitution…
Roberts effectively tripled or quadrupled their sentences, Ohio University Law Professor Douglas Berman has argued. Berman has filed a separate brief on behalf of the three men.
A federal appeals court upheld Roberts’ ruling, prompting the attorneys to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has until July 28 to decide whether to hear the appeal. If the court doesn’t hear the appeal, the power of federal judges to throw out jury verdicts will be upheld.
More Common Than Popularly Thought
“This alarmingly common practice by unelected federal judges of considering charges that criminal defendants were not convicted of during sentencing usurps the role of the jury and violates the constitutional right of citizens to be judged by a jury of their peers,” Rutherford Institute President John W. Whitehead noted in a press release.
“The very idea that judges could be allowed to discard the sound decisions of the jury in favor of their own determination of the facts runs contrary to the principles embodied in the Sixth Amendment, and to the very idea of a trial by a jury of our peers,” Whitehead said.
The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by Article III and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Rutherford and Cato attorneys argued. They also noted that the right to jury dates back to the Magna Carta signed in England in 1215. Trial by jury is considered to be the basis of the common law used in all English-speaking countries.
“But the end result is inconsistent with the maxim that no one be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers,” the Cato and Rutherford attorneys wrote of the legal precedents.
Judge’s Discretion to Set Aside Verdicts
In a civil trial, a judge may set aside the verdict regarding how much money should be awarded by the jury to the plaintiff in punitive damages. These damages consist of a dollar figure the jury awards the plaintiff in order to punish the defendant. This amount is totally distinct from compensatory damages, which are meant to reimburse the plaintiff for lost wages as well as pain and suffering. Given the purpose of punitive damages, juries can award verdicts that in punitive damages alone amount to millions of dollars.
The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes review by any court of a judgment over $20. In light of this provision, courts will not overturn an award made by a jury just because of its large size or because the judge, if he had been standing in their shoes, would have awarded a smaller sum. However, a judge may reduce the amount of the award if it is far in excess of any rational calculation. Because compensatory damages such as lost wages have formulas by which juries can arrive at an acceptable figure, the reduction of an award is usually applied to punitive damages. The specific ground judges use to justify this action is that the award was made out of “passion and prejudice”.
In criminal cases, judges may disregard a jury’s guilty verdict and acquit or grant a new trial if they believe the evidence was insufficient to support the decision made by the jurors. Judges may also set aside a verdict if they believe the verdict was reached on a basis that violates the U.S. or respective State constitution or if the legal theory on which the jury based their decision does not conform to the law.
Can a Judge Overturn a Jury Verdict?
By Andrew Stine | Published July-01-2011
Have you ever wondered if a judge can overturn a guilty verdict, or even a not guilty verdict? The results of former West Palm Beach Firefighter Capt. Rick Curtis’s trial may leave people wondering – is a jury verdict the final word?
DUI Conviction Overturned
According to the Palm Beach Post, Rick Curtis is fighting to get his job back as a firefighter for West Palm Beach now that his DUI conviction has been overturned. The conviction was overturned after Curtis alleged that the judge had an “intimate relationship” with one of Curtis’ adversarial colleagues. Curtis claims he didn’t learn of the relationship until after the trial.
City officials are refusing to let Curtis return to the department and are claiming that the conviction wasn’t the sole reason he was fired. County Court Judge Paul Damico ordered a new trial Wednesday.
Can a Judge Overrule a Jury Verdict?
In any trial, the judge’s decision and opinion has higher authority than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that a judge is an expert on the law and the jury is not. The judge can overturn a guilty verdict and find the defendant not guilty, but not the other way around.
Instead of overturning a guilty verdict, the judge can order a new trial. This is a rare instance that can happen if the judge determines that there was a procedural error or an error with the evidence that was important to the case.
Ultimately, a judge overruling a jury verdict is very rare because jury verdicts are supposed to represent the sentiment of the community.
If you are facing charges and fear the results of your trial, you need a criminal defense lawyer on your side. An experienced criminal defense lawyer will know how to file a motion to vacate the conviction if you feel that you have been wrongly convicted based on errors during the trial.
Jury's 'Cannibal' Cop Verdict Overturned by Judge
By Aaron Katersky
Jul 1, 2014, 4:17 PM ET
The so-called cannibal cop is free.
Former New York City Police Officer Gilberto Valle, 40, was released from federal custody less than 24 hours after a judge overturned his jury conviction in a case called a reflection of “the Internet age in which we live.”
The alleged conspiracy to kidnap, torture, rape, murder and cannibalize women that Valle was found guilty of "existed solely in cyberspace," Judge Paul Gardephe ruled. He conceded the detail may have been graphic and "deeply disturbing" – at one point Valle mentioned "human-size ovens and rotisseries" and pulley apparatuses for torture. But despite Valle's "deviant and depraved sexual interests," Gardephe said "no real-world, non-Internet-based steps were even taken."
"The judge's well-reasoned decision validates what we have said since the beginning: There was no crime," defense attorney Julia Gatto said. "Gil Valle is innocent of any conspiracy. Gil is guilty of nothing more than having unconventional thoughts." "The government believes the jury got it right," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Hadassa Waxman. Valle walked out of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on $100,000 bond. He had been jailed since 2012 and planned to return to a home in Queens, where he will be subject to home detention monitoring by GPS device.
He can have no computer or internet use and no contact with any of the women who testified against him. Once outside, he told reporters, "I want to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone I hurt, shocked and offended with my infantile behavior."
At his often macabre trial prosecutors revealed Valle’s internet conversation on Dark Fetish Network. Many of them involved photographs of women he knew, including his wife, work colleagues and college friends and “chats” with users about committing acts of sexual violence against those women.
The judge sided with Valle, who argued his chats were nothing but fantasy role-play.
“Once the lies and fantastical elements are stripped away, what is left are deeply disturbing misogynistic chats and emails written by an individual obsessed with imagining women he knows suffering horrific sex-related pain, terror and degradation,” the judge wrote. “Despite the highly disturbing nature of Valle’s deviant and depraved sexual interests, his chats and emails about these interests are not sufficient – standing alone – to make out the elements of a conspiracy to commit kidnapping.”
A separate count of improperly accessing a law enforcement database was upheld.