Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: The Founders Loved Jury Trials. Almost No One Gets One Anymore.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    723
    Feedback Score
    0

    The Founders Loved Jury Trials. Almost No One Gets One Anymore.

    https://reason.com/2022/07/04/the-fo...s-one-anymore/

    John Adams called jury trials part of the "heart and lungs of liberty." Today, defendants are often punished for exercising that very right.

    What is the Sixth Amendment?

    You wouldn't be blamed for having to consult Google to answer that question. The Founders are rolling in their graves anyway.

    It's the right to a trial by jury, and it's one that society has all but disposed of—despite the Framers' insistence that it be included in the Bill of Rights as one of the primary bulwarks against government tyranny.

    They didn't exactly mince words. "Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty," wrote John Adams. "Without them we have no fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hogs."

    One wonders what animalistic metaphors Adams would conjure today if he could see the U.S. criminal justice system in motion: one in which about 97 percent of trials are resolved without juries, devoid of the sacrosanct lifeblood that keeps human liberty from death by suffocation.

    That tool has been supplanted by the plea bargain. In popular culture, that's widely seen as advantageous to defendants. In reality, it's been disastrous. It epitomizes government coercion. It epitomizes what the Founders warned against.

    That's because the places where we're accustomed to seeing the criminal legal system play out—on shows like Law and Order: Special Victims Unit—can't and don't account for how plea "deals" often work in practice. The bulk of a prosecutor's job is not spent in the hallowed halls of a courtroom participating in a high-stakes battle over someone's liberty, all while journalists wait in the wings to capture the victor's speech on marble steps. It's spent in backrooms, with district attorneys "charge-stacking," or filing multiple criminal charges against someone for the same offense, calculating a grisly potential prison sentence, and offering to make some of that go away—so long as the defendant in question does not exercise his or her constitutional right to a trial by jury.

    If they refuse, then they will risk a substantially higher time behind bars, not because a prosecutor views it as necessary for public safety but because he or she dared to inconvenience them with a trial. After all, what the defendant is accused of didn't change. But trials are expensive. And the government can never be sure when it will win, so better to avoid them where possible.

    But that latter part—the uncertainty—is supposed to be the point. It's true that many criminal defendants are guilty. It's also true that some are innocent and have been forced to pay with their liberty anyway. A person who is not guilty likely wants to go to trial. But why risk a decade behind bars for insisting on your Sixth Amendment right when you could be out in two or three?

    Some have rolled those dice, and with mixed results. Consider the case of Brandon Bostian, an Amtrak engineer who accidentally crashed a train in 2015 when he said he was distracted by radio reports of other trains being pelted with bullets or rocks. Prosecutors charged him with causing a catastrophe, eight counts of involuntary manslaughter, and over 200 counts of reckless endangerment.

    As the trial grew nearer, prosecutors came around with a deal: Plead "no contest" to 9 counts, or go to trial and die in prison.

    So, in March, he went to trial, where he was acquitted on all charges in 90 minutes.

    Nothing encapsulated the ridiculousness of Bostian's position better than the jurist overseeing the case. In declining the deal, he was possibly subjecting himself to "more than a lifetime of incarceration," said Judge Barbara McDermott. That's not because the accusations against Bostian had been altered or were in dispute, and it's not because the prosecutors finally saw the light. Those attorneys admitted with their offered bargain that Bostian need not serve a lifetime in prison. But that excess punishment was left in place to strong-arm him out of exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial so that the government would not have to prove why Bostian's liberty should be taken away—perhaps because their case was frankly awful. And yet I still can't say I would have had the guts to do the same, had I been in Bostian's shoes.


    It's a creative way to subvert the Constitution, emboldened by local legislatures with a slew of tough-on-crime charging and sentencing laws. In some ways, it could very well be illegal. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office, for example, has made a habit of telling defendants in fine print that they will spend more time in prison if they merely ask to attend a probable cause hearing or see the evidence against them. Such was the case with Levonta Barker, who was offered a 7.5-year plea deal for aggravated assault and kidnapping with the stipulation that prosecutors would ratchet it up should he want to learn more about the state's case against him.

    Which was important, because he was innocent—something that should have been immediately apparent, as he did not match the description of the perpetrator rendered in the police department's own reports. He would go on to spend a month in jail before his lawyer was able to secure his release, though it's understandable why someone in Barker's position may have taken the deal. When 7.5 years is your minimum, it's best not to bargain your life away.


    Alleged criminal defendants aren't the most popular people in society. But the Constitution isn't meant to protect the popular, as they typically don't need protecting. It's meant to provide safeguards for those who the government would otherwise cast aside: the alleged killer, voter fraudster, Capitol rioter.

    After all, the Founders were radicals. So on this Fourth of July, remember this: that their radicalism didn't begin and end with the First and Second Amendments.
    Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right. Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    723
    Feedback Score
    0
    Another tool prosecutors abuse is the grand jury system. Originally any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly.

    But not today…
    Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right. Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    857
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Great post. It's not something worth going into great detail on but I've been there. When the DA's willing to bargain and reduce three charges that would result in 25 years a piece (75 years total) to 5 years per charge served concurrently, it's easy to see why so many people take the deal.
    In heavenly love abiding, no change my heart shall fear;
    and safe is such confiding, for nothing changes here:
    the storm may roar without me, my heart may low be laid;
    but God is round about me, and can I be dismayed?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    263
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    I have a buddy that lived this nightmare. Investment Banker accused of a financial/tax crime. DOJ raided his house at 6AM with guns drawn, took his computers, files, etc from home as well as office. All his coworkers plea dealed and had their careers destroyed. He absolutely refused. They tried every trick in the book, including switching prosecutors at the last minute to delay trials etc.

    When it was all over, he was out $600K to the lawyers, and a free man. They dropped the case. Once he got a copy of their "evidence", it was a 1/4" thick file with nothing remotely criminal in it. The whole thing was pure intimidation in an environment where the gov wanted to "do something" about offshore tax structures.

    Public prosecutors build careers with convictions. Plea deals avoid the risk of a loss. Something really should be done to prevent further abuse.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Urban Cessmaze
    Posts
    4,674
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)
    TPTB can't risk jury nullification, though most Americans probably don't know about that either, if they want to keep us serfs under control!
    - Either you're part of the problem or you're part of the solution or you're just part of the landscape - Sam (Robert DeNiro) in, "Ronin" -

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Posts
    699
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I have been handing out way more jury trial subpoenas these days. The turds have learned they have a better chance of beating 12 dummies who think every crime scene is a csi episode than taking a crappy throw the book at them first deal. The prosecutors generally cave and give them the deal they want to avoid losing in a jury trial.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    10,138
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think the OP meant the opposite as far as reasoning to why plea deals are happening.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry
    Oh, and screw China!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Posts
    699
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Oh we do not have a shortage of plea deals that drop charges down to lesser levels and probation or this pansy assed 120 day "shock treatment" in prison.

    I am saying the bad guys are using the trial by jury to drag the system out longer to get victims/witnesses tired of coming to court, putting prosecutor on edge since their job just got harder as they have to convince 7-12 people of someone's guilt. We have lost so many jury trials of sex offenders because of lack of physical evidence and they don't believe the victims, but winning dwi's like crazy cause most people hate drunk driving.

    I have yet to see multiple charge conviction be ran consecutively instead of concurrent. They also use the time the clown spent in jail fighting the case as time served toward the sentence. I'm sorry but that is time spent while innocent and should not go toward the sentence time.
    Last edited by joedirt199; 07-04-22 at 22:01.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    29,915
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    These days, it would be challenging to find 12 "peers", I'm more likely to be tried by 12 oprah viewers who couldn't get out of jury duty.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Just another filthy undesirable civilian "basement dweller"
    Posts
    6,721
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Your jury will probably be the twelve dumbest drooling retards the prosecutor could round up and shortbus in.
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!
    --after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Joe Biden is not, nor will he EVER be, my President. Psalms 109:8 #SauceForGooseSauceForGander #AllDemsArePedos

    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •