Called for Jury Duty..

Yeah, I deferred it last year. While I really feel that this is going to be a waste of time trial, etc.. I am going to suck it up and do it.

Do you think I would be out of line e-mailing the proper people at the courthouse to find out if they have a method of "checking in" sidearms so that I do not have to leave mine at home? Or maybe this would be stirring up the bees nest? I am still uncomfortable leaving mine in the car even locked up.

I don't see what the big deal is. You can also ask if there's a Presiding Judge Order Banning Firearms for the courthouse. I'm not sure how'd you get your firearm inside the front door of a courthouse legally though. Maybe they have lockboxes on the outside somewhere?

How about calling from a pay phone?

Remember to wear gloves and a mask to keep saliva off the phone's mic - just in case they check.

I hear one of those voice disguisers are handy, too.

Just remember to keep your opinions to yourself until you get the jury charge and go into the back to deliberate. No sense getting excused/thrown off before you could be useful.

stay safe.

when i lived in philadelphia you were not allowed cell phones or gun past the lobby of the courthouse.... the line to check in a cell phone was always over 100 people but only 3 or 4 to lock up your sidearm. i always slipped my cell into the basket with my pistol and mags.

I am not concerned about my privacy via email. My email server is mine and under my control. The best someone could do is lookup the registrar information for my domain and they only information they would get is what they already have (name and address).

Since carrying (either OC or CC) I haven't gone a day without my side arm, and I feel uncomfortable without now. Funny how that works.

Just was hoping that by asking the question they don't consider it a threat or something stupid and unfounded along those lines.

VW_Factor said:

I am not concerned about my privacy via email. My email server is mine and under my control. The best someone could do is lookup the registrar information for my domain and they only information they would get is what they already have (name and address).

Since carrying (either OC or CC) I haven't gone a day without my side arm, and I feel uncomfortable without now. Funny how that works.

Just was hoping that by asking the question they don't consider it a threat or something stupid and unfounded along those lines.

Click to expand...

I believe the Multnomah County Courthouse does not provide lock boxes, but I can't find where I read this at. I'm not sure of other courthouses, it would be nice if they did though. Maybe have someone drop you off at the entrance and pickup when it's over and rearm in car?

VW_Factor said:

I am not concerned about my privacy via email. My email server is mine and under my control. The best someone could do is lookup the registrar information for my domain and they only information they would get is what they already have (name and address).

Since carrying (either OC or CC) I haven't gone a day without my side arm, and I feel uncomfortable without now. Funny how that works.

Just was hoping that by asking the question they don't consider it a threat or something stupid and unfounded along those lines.

Click to expand...

Since I am guessing you are in Marion County the Marion County Courthouse said the answer is no. They wont even do it for off-duty LEO's

Don't forget to bone-up on your rights and powers as a juror; the judge won't let anybody--especially the defense--tell you after the trial starts. The rationale (specious) seems to be that jurors should/supposed to know all that before the trial starts. No harm in taking them up on it and learning it before trial.

Read Section I of this essay and you will know more about jury powers than 99% of the population, and certainly far more than the government would be comfortable with:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35


And the articles and flyers at the Fully Informed Jury Association: http://fija.org/

Oh PUHLEEEZE!!!

Don't inject the FIJA nonsense into the equation. Go be a juror, follow the law (NOT FIJA links on the internet - none have any credibility), follow the judge's instructions (they've been agreed upon by the plaintiff/state's attorney and the defense attorney, or the argument over what's appropriate has already been ruled on by the judge before the trial), and vote your consciense BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND LAW PRESENTED!!!

FIJA freaks are numerous, yet none have any legal credentials beyond their own declarations, and "jury nullification," though it happens on its own when there is a sympathetic defendant, has been completely overruled, run out, and stomped to death in every state. Defendants are even prosecuted (successfully) for passing out FIJA literature to jurors.

If you want to disrupt the entire history of jurisprudence in the United States, you better declare your unwillingness to follow the judge's jury instructions from the get-go and leave the system to those who take it seriously.

Keep things on topic, please, Mods!

@DCR

Excuse me for asking.. However... What exactly do you hold against FIJA? Did they steal you lunch money or something?

DCR said:

Go be a juror, follow the law (NOT FIJA links on the internet - none have any credibility)

Click to expand...

Can you provide a citation regarding what the law demands a juror do? I'm not aware of any civil or criminal laws which force a juror to behave in a certain way (outside of disrupting the courtroom or other similar things). I'm interested in knowing what jurors must do.

follow the judge's instructions

Click to expand...

Is this law? Can you provide a citation? Or is this what one should do according to your opinion?

(they've been agreed upon by the plaintiff/state's attorney and the defense attorney, or the argument over what's appropriate has already been ruled on by the judge before the trial)

Click to expand...

So theoretically if a judge issued jury instructions that conflicted with the wording of the law, what should the jurors do? If we assume that jurors are bound by the law to follow a judge's instructions, the jury should rule against the defendant despite the fact of what the law says? That doesn't sound right.

and vote your consciense BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND LAW PRESENTED!!!

Click to expand...

What if it is a bad law? Like if a person was loaded open carrying inside a school zone without a license. Would you find that person guilty?

FIJA freaks are numerous, yet none have any legal credentials beyond their own declarations, and "jury nullification," though it happens on its own when there is a sympathetic defendant, has been completely overruled, run out, and stomped to death in every state.

Click to expand...

Citation? Let's say the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial were nullifying the charges for whatever reason. Was their decision overruled? How can the state overrule a judgment issued by a jury? Wouldn't that subject somebody to double jeopardy? Additionally, since you are placing a great deal of importance on legal credentials, what are your legal credentials?

Defendants are even prosecuted (successfully) for passing out FIJA literature to jurors.

Click to expand...

Citation?

If you want to disrupt the entire history of jurisprudence in the United States, you better declare your unwillingness to follow the judge's jury instructions from the get-go and leave the system to those who take it seriously.

Click to expand...

Aren't jury instructions issued to a jury at the end of a trial? How would a juror know what the instructions would be?

I'm curious as to what you have to say about the Supreme Court case of Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895). Here's a quote from the majority opinion:

Chief Justice Jay is reported to have said: 'It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that, by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy

Click to expand...

As you may know, Chief Justice Jay was one of the authors of the federalist papers. He probably knew a thing or two about the reasons behind the way the U.S. Constitution was written.

And here's an excerpt from a dissenting opinion:

The judge, by instructing the jury that they were bound to accept the law as given to them by the court, denied their right to decide the law. And by instructing them that, if a felonious homicide by the defendants was proved, there was nothing in the case to reduce it below the grade of murder, and they could not properly find it to be manslaughter, and by declining to submit to them the question whether the defendants were guilty of manslaughter only, he denied their right to decide the fact. The colloquy between the judge and the jurors, when they came in for further instructions, clearly shows that the jury, after deliberating upon the case, were in doubt whether the crime which the defendants had committed was murder or manslaughter; and that it was solely by reason of these instructions of the judge that they returned a verdict of the higher crime.

It is our deep and settled conviction, confirmed by a re-examination of the authorities under the responsibility of taking part in the consideration and decision of the capital case now before the court, that the jury, upon the general issue of guilty or not guilty in a criminal case, have the right, as well as the power, to decide, according to their own judgment and consciences, all questions, whether of law or of fact, involved in that issue.

Click to expand...

As you can see, both sides in this case are saying the jury can judge the facts of the case as well as the law itself. Has this case been overturned? What case overturned it?

I'm also curious about your thoughts as to why a jury of one's peers is required by the U.S. Constitution to find a person guilty of criminal offenses? Why not just have 12 judges? Surely that would make the entire judicial system much more efficient. The "jurors" would already be experts in the law and would make fewer mistakes, would they not?

I eagerly await your reply.

Seriously?

Getting back to the original question, I can't believe you're really asking it. Guns aren't allowed in court buildings, period. Don't ask them if they have a way to check your gun, THEY DON'T! Either leave the thing at home or get over your phobia about leaving it in the car. End of discussion.

bigtoe416 said:

SNIP As you can see, both sides in this case are saying the jury can judge the facts of the case as well as the law itself. Has this case been overturned? What case overturned it?

Click to expand...

Can't have been overturned. Even if a court claimed authority to overturn a right, it would be a lie.

The rights and powers of a juror pre-date the Founding. Just like the 2A does not confer a right; it merely describes a right that already existed.

The government cannot abolish a right, although it may try.

If anyone hasn't, read the first section of the essay I linked above. A very erudite analysis of the purpose, powers, rights, and protections offered by a jury. In just a few paragraphs, the author really lays it out.

Signed,

FIJA Freak

DCR said:

SNIP If you want to disrupt the entire history of jurisprudence in the United States, you better declare your unwillingness to follow the judge's jury instructions from the get-go and leave the system to those who take it seriously.

Click to expand...

Oh? So you take seriously the perpetuation of bad laws created by self-interested legislators, enforced by self-interested police? And, a judicial system that seeks to abolish a threat to its power by nullifying a power of a jury?

Tell that to the jurors in William Penn's trial who spent time in jail--in jail--sent there by the judges, to be held "without fire, meat, and tobacco," to coerce them into changing their not-guilty verdict. A few of who were then prosecuted for resisting Penn's judges. Oh, and tell that also to the people who have some measure of religious freedom because Penn's juror's wouldn't cave in to the judges' demand for a guilty verdict. All despite the fact that Penn did break the law and preach Quakerism in the street after his church had been shuttered by law.

This is all well documented history (the Brits still have some transcript of Penn's trial.) And, I'm the one who has nothing but my own declarations?

--FIJA Freak


Hmmmm. People have a 6A right to a jury trial. This means people have a right to a trial by jury with all the accessories that went along with a jury. So, its not only the members of the jury whose rights and powers are infringed by a judge who denies jurors judging the law; included is the defendant.

Historyman1942 said:

Since I am guessing you are in Marion County the Marion County Courthouse said the answer is no. They wont even do it for off-duty LEO's

Click to expand...

Its interesting, because reading around some websites. It appears a few courthouses actually have ways for citizens (and off duty LEO) to check the weapon and have a proper area to lock it up. Which brings on the question.. Why have other courthouses not done this?

Ironbar said:

Getting back to the original question, I can't believe you're really asking it. Guns aren't allowed in court buildings, period. Don't ask them if they have a way to check your gun, THEY DON'T! Either leave the thing at home or get over your phobia about leaving it in the car. End of discussion.

Click to expand...

Why is it bad to ask questions? Does it offend you, or are you worried others might be offended?

Okay, all the FIJA freaks

Want to get into a d*ck measuring contest? I'll pit my three degrees (yes, one in law), federal and several state bar memberships, and 21 years of practice against any and all of you. You won't win - even if you are OC'ing!

Quoting dicta out of context is not refutation of what I've asserted.

Not being willing to live by the laws your elected representatives have enacted is sedition and treason - how you feel about yourselves now? Stop voting for the idiots you keep electing if you don't like the laws - vote the other party for sh*ts & giggles - you might end up more free!

You clearly don't understand trial dynamics - good attorneys ask the jury during voir dire (before the trial, for the FIJA freaks) whether they can and will abide by the instructions that will be given by the judge. The FIJA freaks that don't like jury instructions haven't read thoroughly what I wrote or have a warped, misguided and simplistic, sophistic understanding of history and jurisprudence. Go back to school, fools!

Finally, quoting federalist papers - written pre-constitution, and claiming they were written a hundred years later doesn't enhance your credibility, bub.

Too many T-holes frequent this board - FIJA freaks, neocon wannabe-constitutionalist "scholars," and the idiots who think they are "freemen" who don't need to pay taxes, register their cars, obtain driver's licenses, purchase liability insurance, misquote sections of the UCC and court decisions, believe that the government is a corporation so they can use the UCC to evade laws duly enacted by the people, think that fringe on a flag deprives a state court of jurisdiction to stuff their freemen attitudes down their throats and force them to abide by the laws everyone else in the world does, that the use of capital letters in a criminal or civil summons renders the whole pleading invalid because of their nonsensical idea that it invokes the UCC, etc., etc., etc.

If the moderators of this board want to keep it even remotely credible for the users, they would be well-served to block such users, or make the background of such posts bright yellow so everyone can know it was written by a whacko.

Good day - and should I ever meet you in court, bring a soft cushion and preparation H - you'll need it, if not from me, from the judge, or the Bubbas you'll be spending time with for contempt of court for bringing in FIJA or other whacko theories.

@DCR

Take your piss poor attitude somewhere else.

Hopefully you provide more citations in your legal briefs and you don't constantly berate jurors by calling them names. For some reason you think it's fine for you to behave like a jerk online. That's fine, but I doubt you'll be convincing anybody of anything anytime soon.

the best thing about america is the freedom of speech , backed by our right to bear arms. we also can pursue happiness. some people do so by printing long winded diatribes to refute other posts that are irrelevant to the original topic. said internet users are what we used to call dime store cowboys. its easier now to list your credentials anonymously from the cool dusty darkness of their moms basement when they are taking a break from playing world or warcraft.

i myself am a ninja.