Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Totally outrageous behavior from the judge!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Angry Totally outrageous behavior from the judge!

    From source.

    ...snip>

    Yet Judge Morley wouldn't allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn't even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken's lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.
    _________________________________________

    Police or Judge has sworn an oath to uphold the law and the constitution, yep... I still don't get it, do you?
    Last edited by Wc; 11-20-2010 at 04:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Yeah. It's been talked about. A lot.

    Everybody's waiting to see what appeals are entered. Till then, not much use in getting all worked up again.

    stay safe.

    PS - for those that didn't get the memo - the judge was not reappointed. It was for other stuff just as bad.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This will surely be corrected on appeal...

    That's how I started the post. Then I thought more about it. Now, I don't know. The judge makes it sound like Aitken had the gun in his car for an extended period of time, even having missed an opportunity to put the gun in his new residence. Unfortunately, this is unclear.

    Still, the defense attorney says that this is a question of fact, and not of law. It is for the jury to decide if he was simply using the federal exception to move his gun from one place he can lawfully possess it to another, or if he was driving hither and yon with the guns in his car in violation of NJ law.

    I think this should be sent to another jury, with them properly charged by the judge. In the interim, Aitken should be release.

    Of course, if after examining the facts, Governor Christie determines that Aitken is plain innocent, he should use his executive power to remove this conviction and make Aitken whole (as whole as is possible for someone who spent time in prison).

    However, here is a lesson that seems to be being missed: Don't say anything to police officers! You never know how they might be used against you or a loved one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    884
    One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wilder, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    46
    WOW...just unbelievable. hope all turns out well on appeal.
    Last edited by Guido; 11-20-2010 at 04:23 PM. Reason: mis-spelling

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.

    Yeah, Baby!
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido View Post
    WOW...just unbelievable. hope all turns out well on appeal.
    if I remember my reading correctly, a defendant cannot raise an argument in appeal that wasn't argued at trial, correct?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wilder, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    46
    I believe that the appeals court has the discretion to decided to hear new evidence if they so wish, however I would presume that this gentleman's appeal will be along the lines of unfair trial due to the judge not following the law as it is written in his state and for giving incorrect orders to the jury....unfortunately though I am not all that familiar with the laws in this State as I have mostly lived on the west coast.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    New evidence is not necessary. The appeal would be based on allowing suppressed testimony to be heard and the charge to the jury to be changed.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.
    This is like advising people not to set their own hair on fire... You really shouldn't have to tell them that....

    ;-)

Posting Permissions

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