TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:It seems that the press is siding with the prosecution - Mr. Lemes used "hollowpoints".

Guilty! Off with his head!

WildBill wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:hollow points in his laser sited handgun capable of shooting hundreds of bullets a minute

Exactly.

So in other words, the defendant took extraordinary care to select weapon accessories and ammunition that are designed to minimize the possibility of an innocent person being erroneously injured by his weapon.

Here's another link that has some footage from the actual trial.

http://www.kens5.com/home/Verdict-uncer ... 67358.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:Are you familiar with the Mark Fuhrman case? He was not guilty, but he plead to a felony perjury charge to avoid the monetary and emotional cost of a trial. He didn't go to jail, but lost his rights to possess firearms, and could never get another job as an LEO.

I'm curious. How do you know that Fuhrman was innocent?

WildBill wrote:Back on topic. Ray Lemes' attorney filed a motion to ask the judge to hold the juror in contempt.

http://www.ksat.com/news/27152027/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can anyone explain why looking up the definition of murder and manslaughter is a crime if you're a juror? I don't understand that at all.

It's not a criminal offence per se.

Jurors are instructed when they are sworn in not to perform independent research, listen to or read news reports about the trial, or talk about it to anyone, including each other before deliberation begins.

I tried to explain the reason for this previously. The plain text of one statute is not sufficient to understand the law. It is necessary to understand the interactions of statutes and case law.

The prosecution and defense often argue (in the legal sense) about jury instructions at great length. The judge gives that information to the jury before they begin deliberation.

- Jim

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Are you familiar with the Mark Fuhrman case? He was not guilty, but he plead to a felony perjury charge to avoid the monetary and emotional cost of a trial. He didn't go to jail, but lost his rights to possess firearms, and could never get another job as an LEO.

I'm curious. How do you know that Fuhrman was innocent?

I believe that the charges were politically motivated. Fuhrman was made to look like the racist cop who was a disgrace to the LAPD. The LA district attorney would not file perjury charges, but eventually the state attorney general did. At the time, Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti stated that Fuhrman's use of racist language was "not material to the case", a major element of proving perjury.

The attorney general's office filed charges and offered Fuhrman a plea bargain. Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded no contest to the charges. He was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $200.

In 1998 California Attorney General Dan Lungren ran as the Republican candidate for governor against Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis. He lost by a large margin.

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Are you familiar with the Mark Fuhrman case? He was not guilty, but he plead to a felony perjury charge to avoid the monetary and emotional cost of a trial. He didn't go to jail, but lost his rights to possess firearms, and could never get another job as an LEO.

I'm curious. How do you know that Fuhrman was innocent?

He said so in his book and I believe him. Others, such as former LA DA Leo Bugliosi and agree.

I believe that the charges were politically motivated. Fuhrman was made to look like the racist cop who was a disgrace to the LAPD. The LA district attorney would not file perjury charges, but eventually the state attorney general did. At the time, Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti stated that Fuhrman's use of racist language was "not material to the case", a major element of proving perjury.

The attorney general's office filed charges and offered Fuhrman a plea bargain. Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded no contest to the charges. He was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $200.

So he was a racist but it didn't matter. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. If the LA DA stated that he used racist language, doesn't that make him a racist cop? How then is the charge that he's a racist cop politically motivated versus the truth?

Since this is way off topic for this thread, I'll let you have the last word and will not respond again to continue this.

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:Are you familiar with the Mark Fuhrman case? He was not guilty, but he plead to a felony perjury charge to avoid the monetary and emotional cost of a trial. He didn't go to jail, but lost his rights to possess firearms, and could never get another job as an LEO.

I'm curious. How do you know that Fuhrman was innocent?

He said so in his book and I believe him. Others, such as former LA DA Leo Bugliosi and agree.

I believe that the charges were politically motivated. Fuhrman was made to look like the racist cop who was a disgrace to the LAPD. The LA district attorney would not file perjury charges, but eventually the state attorney general did. At the time, Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti stated that Fuhrman's use of racist language was "not material to the case", a major element of proving perjury.

The attorney general's office filed charges and offered Fuhrman a plea bargain. Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded no contest to the charges. He was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $200.

So he was a racist but it didn't matter. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. If the LA DA stated that he used racist language, doesn't that make him a racist cop? How then is the charge that he's a racist cop politically motivated versus the truth?

Since this is way off topic for this thread, I'll let you have the last word and will not respond again to continue this.

Whether or not he was a racist isn't the issue. His statements on the witness stand regarding the evidence of the murder were true. This is OT, but if you like, we can start another thread.

seamusTX wrote:I tried to explain the reason for this previously. The plain text of one statute is not sufficient to understand the law. It is necessary to understand the interactions of statutes and case law.

If the jurors can't understand the law by reading what it really says, then it's unreasonable to expect the defendant to understand and obey the law.

NOT GUILTY!

This is the way the system works. I don't like it, but it's the reality that everyone has to deal with.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:They don't want jurors to try to be amateur lawyers.

As we have seen in many discussions on this forum, a literal reading of one part of the statutes is not sufficient to understand the whole body of law. Various statutes interact with one another (such as murder versus justifications and exceptions) and there is a body of case law that is difficult even for a lawyer to understand.

If ever you are on a jury, it's best to avoid even thinking about the case while you're outside of the courtroom, let alone talking about it or doing research about it.

IANAL, which is probably why I regard this argument as hokum. Laws should not be written for lawyers, they should be written for everybody that's expected to observe them.

And after reading the preposterous "reasoning" behind some legal decisions handed down by some very senior judges (e.g., Wickard v. Filburn) I simply do not trust a judge - ANY judge - to correctly "instruct" me in the law.

So far I've only served as a juror on a couple of very simple cases, but if the legal arguments I heard in court were opaque, I'd have no qualms about doing my own research.

HankB wrote:

seamusTX wrote:They don't want jurors to try to be amateur lawyers.

As we have seen in many discussions on this forum, a literal reading of one part of the statutes is not sufficient to understand the whole body of law. Various statutes interact with one another (such as murder versus justifications and exceptions) and there is a body of case law that is difficult even for a lawyer to understand.

If ever you are on a jury, it's best to avoid even thinking about the case while you're outside of the courtroom, let alone talking about it or doing research about it.

IANAL, which is probably why I regard this argument as hokum. Laws should not be written for lawyers, they should be written for everybody that's expected to observe them.

And after reading the preposterous "reasoning" behind some legal decisions handed down by some very senior judges (e.g., Wickard v. Filburn) I simply do not trust a judge - ANY judge - to correctly "instruct" me in the law.

So far I've only served as a juror on a couple of very simple cases, but if the legal arguments I heard in court were opaque, I'd have no qualms about doing my own research.

Most other countries don't even have juries. The cases are decided by the judge. In some countries witnesses don't even testify and the judge decides the case based on the briefs summitted by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Our legal system is not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

HankB, I also disagree with many judicial decisions. However, judges hold office according to the democratic process, and you or I do not. A judge can put you in jail with the stroke of a gavel. You can't put a judge in jail.

You have to do what your conscience dictates. Just be aware of the possible consequences.

Bill is correct that the jury system is nearly defunct even in countries that inherited the English common law system (as the U.S. did). Mostly they have jury trials only for capital cases.

In the rest of the world, a defendant is essentially guilty as and when charged.

- Jim

Ameer wrote:

seamusTX wrote:I tried to explain the reason for this previously. The plain text of one statute is not sufficient to understand the law. It is necessary to understand the interactions of statutes and case law.

If the jurors can't understand the law by reading what it really says, then it's unreasonable to expect the defendant to understand and obey the law.

NOT GUILTY!

Quite a number of years back, i remember reading about a case in, IIRC, the Wall Street Journal where a jury decided a case on exactly this basis.

IIRC, someone was being prosecuted on some very arcane and technical area of securities law. When the case went to the jury, they realized that none of them could figure out what the case was about. They asked questions of the judge, who simply quoted them the law - in full legalese - as a response to each question. Finally, they just voted to acquit, figuring that if they couldn't figure out what the law said after the fact, there was no way they were going to punish someone for violating it.