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?

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.

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.

One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.

WOW...just unbelievable. hope all turns out well on appeal.

MamaLiberty said:

One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Baby! :banana::banana:

Guido said:

WOW...just unbelievable. hope all turns out well on appeal.

Click to expand...

if I remember my reading correctly, a defendant cannot raise an argument in appeal that wasn't argued at trial, correct?

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.

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.

MamaLiberty said:

One might also consider not moving to New Jersey... or California... etc.

Click to expand...

This is like advising people not to set their own hair on fire... You really shouldn't have to tell them that....

;-)