Primus
Regular Member
So the defense doesn't get a pick? Defense doesn't get the SAME amount of picks?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Spokane pot case has gun rights implications
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
So the defense doesn't get a pick? Defense doesn't get the SAME amount of picks?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Lammo
Regular Member
I can give you two: 21 United States Code Section 802 (16):
(16) The term “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
AND, RCW 69.50.101(t):
(t) "Marijuana" or "marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
The first is the Federal definition; the second is the Washington State definition. Slight differences between the two allowing for local variations in the adoption of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
Lammo
Regular Member
Minor quibble (pointed out to increase understanding).
Nobody "gets a pick" because we don't pick juries, at least not in this state. What we really do in "jury selection" is de-selection; that is, we remove jurors we don't want. Both sides get an equal number of "peremptory challenges" by which they can remove a juror from the pool without having to give any reason (6 per side in a felony criminal case).
There is no limit on the number of challenges "for cause," for which the party wanting to remove a juror has to explain the reason. The reason has to be some indication of bias related to the case. A classic example would be that the juror is related to or employed by the defendant, one of the lawyers, or one of the witnesses. For example, I was removed for cause from a jury panel in a criminal case being prosecuted by the office I work for. After you are done taking people off, the 12 you are left with (in a felony criminal case) plus, maybe, a few alternates, is your jury.
Primus
Regular Member
Agreed. Im pretty familiar with the process I have to testify a couple times a month in cases. I'm one of the guys when has to stand up and they ask all the potential jurors if they know me or are related.
The preemptory challeneges were the "picks" was referring to.
As in if you have a person of a certain demographic that is likely to got NG then the prosecution can "pick" (depick? Lol) them. My point was the defense gets the same amount of freebies. The rest they have to fight for.
So on face value they are "even". Which is the whole point.
Thanks for the explanation though.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I think everyone agrees as to how it works. (thanks guys, for the detail) but it's still not unbiased, or, as it should be, slightly biased towards the defendant. (remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty)
There's no way that the lawyers don't know by the end of jury selection in probably most cases who it's very very likely gonna win.
Of course, there's always gonna be one or two toss ups.
Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
There's no way that the lawyers don't know by the end of jury selection in probably most cases who it's very very likely gonna win.
Of course, there's always gonna be one or two toss ups.
Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
Primus
Regular Member
Also this only applies to jury trials. You can choose a bench trial.
For example in MA if your on trial for OUI you'd be crazy not to choose bench trial. The rate is like damn near 90% (think last reported in high 80s) NG rate on a bench trial.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
This my friends is what you call trolling (a species of).
A conversation is occurring between a few individuals then the third party will step in and throw out either an insult or some other remark meant to get a reaction from another party.
Synonym is ****** baggery.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Actually it is very pervasive, even a DOJ study showed it to be. So the chances you are a testilier is much greater than you are not. Given your propensity for not being accurate and honest in this forum it would be a fair conclusion.
JoeSparky
Centurion
IF the Not Guilty (NG) rate in Massachusets bench trials for OUI is anywhere near the 90% Primus has suggested then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the prosecution and persecution of these poor folks being charged with a crime that doesn't have a good chance of reaching a guilty verdict!
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yea and part of that problem is the dismissal of informed jurors by prosecutors and judges.
Primus
Regular Member
You don't charge someone based on chances of getting a verdict. You charge them based on probable cause. So if your on a road side at an accident or a stop and you build it and even if they blow and blow over the legal limit, the judge can and does still toss it.
Gives back to judges are humans too. So they feel bad or w/e goes through their head and that's why we have/had the numbers we do.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
I agree to a certain point I seen way to many people walk on what appeared to be a cut a dried case.
I also made sure when I arrested some one I had the evidence, I was sure they were guilty of the crime I was arresting them for.
I never arrested any body so they just got the ride.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
It seems more likely cops charge based on:
1) Meet your monthly quotas
2) Get a raise
3) Get a promotion
4) To seize private property and fund your paycheck (department) regardless of conviction. You just want their cars, house, guns, cash, etc.
5) The guy pissed you off and it's either a) shoot him b) beat him or c) arrest him
6) Because you can, and you're a evil bastard
7) Etc.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
I agree, you build the case the best you can. But some guys won't/don't bother doing the work because they "know" the outcome at the court house.
Motor vehicle stuff is an example. Some guys won't bother citing/ arresting for unlicensed or suspended license. They don't bother because you very rarely if ever see court and the case never goes anywhere. So even when you have a solid case (easy to do... he was driving. Had suspended license or no license. Done.) they won't bother due to the backside of the case.
Ouis are another, when you have guys getting off on OUI 4,5,6 it discourages guys from going through the whole process.
Oh well its just how it works. Guys on the outside swear its an injustice system because they think guys get rail roaded and put away for life and guys on the inside think its a revolving door when your locking the same guys up once a week for beating their same girlfriend or breaking into another house or robbing another person.
The should do more citizen ride along programs.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
JoeSparky
Centurion
The LEO may be based upon pc but the prosecutor should not prosecute a case they can't or won't likely win.
And if the pc and additional evidence the officer obtains isn't enough to sussessfully get a conviction then the officer needs to get more evidence or NOT write the cite.