The Sixth Amendment - Page 6

RightinNYC · 10-22-07, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

They mean exactly what they say.

I understand them just fine, being literate and fluent in english.

So share their meaning then.

Because, believe it or not, there are many jurors who are smarter than either you or I who vehemently disagree about all of them.

So if you've got them all figured out, I'm sure that SCOTUS would like to be aware of your groundbreaking discovery.

RightinNYC · 10-22-07, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Problem identified. Now how to fix?

Explain to him that according to the current state of the world, neither he nor I are Federal Dist. or Ct. Court judges, and accordingly, our opinions on this don't mean ****?

Sounds like a good fix to me.

Harshaw · 10-24-07, 11:11 AM

Supposedly, according to Voidwar, the "solution" was presented, clear as a bell, in 1789.

So, what was it?

Lerxst · 10-24-07, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Supposedly, according to Voidwar, the "solution" was presented, clear as a bell, in 1789.

So, what was it?

Absolute literal, word for word, application. No deviation.

It's funny to see him take that stance and claim to realize exactly what the founding fathers intended.

What a silly boy he is.

Harshaw · 10-26-07, 01:53 AM

OK, then cutting to the quick . . .

How does he know when an impartial jury has been achieved?

Lerxst · 10-30-07, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

OK, then cutting to the quick . . .

How does he know when an impartial jury has been achieved?

He doesn't. He doesn't even know what an impartial jury consists of. He argues here to argue. Take one look at his reasoning and you quickly find that he has no idea what he is talking about. He lives in an intellectual....void.

American · 01-23-08, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

So my fate was supposed to rest in the hands of twelve citizens, but this makes it rest on which lawyer was slicker. Unnacceptable shift of power.

The idea, was that anything the government wanted to do to a citizen, they would need 12 citizen's to sign off on it. That is the core idea of a jury system. The slick lawyer's machinations weaken that protection. One lawyer is always better than another, so two adversarial lawyers will very rarely actually "tie" in these machinations. This means that most juries will then be partial, and partial to the side whose lawyer is better at Voir Dire.

One of those slick lawyers is your slick lawyer.

Bodhisattva · 04-27-08, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

I am skeptical that one can make something "impartial" by having two partial adversaries pick them ???

I think we disagree on where the impartiality comes in.

The jurors are expected to deliver a verdict, which is, by definition, partial, in that it comes down on the side of one party in the dispute. So, "partiality" is a necessary component of a juror. The "impartial" in the Sixth amendment, in my view, is directed at how the jury is selected, and not the jurors themselves.

Wouldn't the problem be solved if ONLY the Defense were able to dismiss "Impartial" jurors?

Voidwar · 04-27-08, 05:11 PM

I don't see much need for dismissal, and what need there might be, can rest in the Judge's hands. A judge that abuses the power is subject to censure or removal from office.

Harshaw · 04-28-08, 04:06 PM

The prosecution and defense have equal opportunity to vet the jury. That's sufficient.