The Constitution vs The Constitution, proud of my wife

[Sky King]

• Edit post
  
• Delete post
  
• Report this post
  
• Reply with quote
  

Constitution vs Constitution, proud of my wife

My wife was summoned for Federal Jury Duty for the month of June. I don't know how it works in other locations, but here in Memphis, if you are called for Federal jury duty, you have to call in every evening to see if you are expected to report the next day. Well my wife was instructed to report for duty on Tuesday, the 7th of June.

I don't know the details of the case but she was in the second group in the jury box to be questioned to see if she would be seated. Apparently the defendant was charged with some form of a firearms violation.

As we all know, a jury trial is a right we all have that is mandated by our Consitution. In as much, serving on a jury is something we all usually do not look forward to but as a Constitutionally protected right, it is a duty we should all respond to when asked. But in the case involving my wife, her "fitness" to serve came head to head with another of our fundamental rights protected in The Bill of Rights, namely, The Second Amendment.

After being called into the jury box, the prosecuting deputy federal attorney asked if anybody or their family owned guns. Needless to say, my wife answered "yes". She was further questioned about just who owned the guns, how many, what type, (handguns, rifles shotguns) and why. My wife stated that the guns were mine and that I owned a few handguns and a couple of rifles but was not sure of the exact details of what they were. When asked why or what purpose I owned these guns, my wife responded that the were for personal protection. When the prospective jurors were asked if anyone had any concerns, my wife raised her hand and made a statement in support of our Second Amendment rights saying that she felt it was a right that is being infringed upon at every turn and that law abiding citizens should have an unquestioned right to own, keep and bear arms.

She was dismissed.

I told her that I was proud of her for taking the stand she took. What I find upsetting is that because a law abiding person takes a public stance in SUPPORT of a right protected by our Constitution, she is deemed unfit to fullfill a duty that is ALSO protected by our Constitution.

I ask all of you here, what is wrong with this picturre?

[Dolomite_supafly]

What is wrong is they are not looking for justice or the truth, they are looking for a conviction. What they do not want is a mistrial or even an acquital after they have expended all the resources in bringing the suspect to trial.

That is the problem with the legal system. All prosecutors want to maintain a high conviction average like some baseball player's batting average. They are rarely concerned with the truth and even when confronted with the truth they will rarely dismiss any charges.

It would have been interesting to hear of the details had she been selected.

Dolomite

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Dolomite has it, it is all about convictions.

You stated that it was a firearms charge, the prosecutor wants a conviction on that charge and since your wife voiced her support of our 2-A he (or she) figured that your wife may be supportive of the defendant so she was dismissed.

Sadly....What is most wrong with the picture is that it happens everyday somewhere in our country. Prospective jurors are dismissed by both the prosecution and defense if they are thought to not be supportive of their case.

I think that it would be more fair and impartial if a jury and the alternates were picked by a third party and each side had to deal with that without knowing what the jurors thought about any particular issue in advance.

[Guest PapaB]

Congratulations to your wife for doing the right thing.

While I agree that convictions provide a lot of the motive in this case, I think it goes beyond that. There is a lot of anti-2nd Amendment sentiment in courtrooms across the country. The progressives view us with a jaundiced eye. Sheeple aren't comfortable with those that don't share thier fear of firearms. The Constitutionalists are no longer the majority thanks in large part to our wonderful education system. I think it will be this way until we return to teaching the Constitution and stop perverting U.S. history.

[Sky King]

Thanks for the responses to my question. I actually do understand why she was dismissed, (I probably should have stated that). I just think that the notion that an intelligent individual can't listen to the facts and evidence and render an impartial verdict regardless of their beliefs is an insult especially when the notion is based on a persons belief in our Consititutional rights. When so many oaths of office for public service include a pledge to support and defend The Constitution, how can they justify dissmissal based on the belief and exercising of those rights, (a rhetorical question)?

I agree with PapaB in that the system is quite biased against the Second Amenment and this is just more proof of that.

[Guest pfries]

What is wrong is they are not looking for justice or the truth, they are looking for a conviction. What they do not want is a mistrial or even an acquital after they have expended all the resources in bringing the suspect to trial.

That is the problem with the legal system. All prosecutors want to maintain a high conviction average like some baseball player's batting average. They are rarely concerned with the truth and even when confronted with the truth they will rarely dismiss any charges.

It would have been interesting to hear of the details had she been selected.

Dolomite

Thank you Dolomite

I think that it would be more fair and impartial if a jury and the alternates were picked by a third party and each side had to deal with that without knowing what the jurors thought about any particular issue in advance.

I realy like this thought Sgt.Joe,

it would be a much more accurate representation of a Jury of our Peers

[1gewehr]

Of course, one could argue that a jury composed of non-firearms owners would not be our peers!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

She took the high road. The justice system let

everyone down.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest pfries]

As I reread the OP's post I had to ask myself and reflect about what Sky King's wife had done. I know when asked about the firearms I would have answered honestly, now I do not know the details of the rest of the selection or what they were told. So I question whether I would have said anything else, this perplexes me as I have always been one to state my thoughts when I have deemed them relevant. Food for thought I suppose.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Sky King give your wife my thanks for standing her ground<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Pat<o:p></o:p>

[vontar]

Dolomite nailed it. Both sides try to stack the jury. They probably figured your wife knew the law better then average joe.

As for jury duty your wife did her duty by showing up when summoned. I wonder if she still has to call in for figure cases or was she totally jury season. I know different counties handle jury duty differently. Such as was she just released for this case and would she maybe be expected to appear for other cases?

A person(the accused) has a right to be trial by jury, no one has a right to sit on jury just a duty to appear when summoned.

However, being asking about your personal firearms in open court for jury duty selection like that is what bothers me more then anything. This is worse then the doctors form we have discussed we it asks if there are firearms in the home. Here she had to tell the truth in open court about her husbands personal firearms.

Of course, one could argue that a jury composed of non-firearms owners would not be our peers!

No were in the constitution. Closest you will get is 6th amendment

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

That has been amended per wiki, (cheating here) so the jury can be selected from were the trial is held. Article III, Section 2

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Jury Of One's Peers

[Sky King]

Thanks to all for the kind words for my wife.

I won't try to do all the quotes from the posts but I will try to respond to several. As for having her questioned about the number, kind and reason for owning the guns, I was a bit ticked. I agree with the comment about comparing it to the physicians questioning patients about gun ownership. My wife's answers were accurate within the scope of her knowlege. My wife fully supports my beliefs and efforts to further and defend our Second Amendment rights. With that said, she chooses not to carry. That is her right just as it is mine to carry. With that, if asked, she honestly could not give you an accurate "inventory" of my firearms. Her answer in court was actually quite short but in all fairness, I actually don't think it is any of their business how many, what kind and why.

As for the jury duty itself, this was for federal court. She received a notice in the mail a few months ago. The way it works is that for the month of June, she was to call a toll free number every evening after 5 PM to see if she was to report the next day. As it turned out, she did have to report on the day mentioned. She was advised AFTER this event that because she actually did get to the jury selection stage, (actually in the jury box) even though she was not seated, her duty had been fullfilled and did not have to call in anymore for the rest of the month. I was surprised. I suggested to her that she call the office responsible for the jury duty and get that in writing somehow.

Now, for the case in question. I have found out that this was a case involving a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Do you all remember the case where a woman's dead body was found under a mattress in a motel room. It had been there for some time and had been found only after the room began to smell. This involved the person who is charged with that womans murder. Of course since capital murder is not usually prosecuted at the federal level, this trial was not a murder trial. He is charged with felony possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.

I still applaud my wifes action. I don't know what I would have done if I were her. I know my first thought would have been, just whose business is it whether I own any firearms, how many, what kind and type and why. My gut would have wanted to ask them, "and this is any of your business because......?" I would have had to bite my tongue on that one because I can imagine I could have found myself cooling my heels in jail for contempt.

I understand the attorneys on both sides wanting jury that is favorable their side but just because I own guns, (considerably more than my wife stated), and obviously believe in the rights of law abiding citizens to own, keep and bear and carry arms shouldn't disqualify me. While I passionately believe in the right

to own, keep, bear and carry by law abiding citizens, I also believe that persons who have proved by their actions that they can not be trusted to be responsible and law abiding, have forfeited that right. So if the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, I would have no problem voting guilty, whether I am a gun owner or not and I think my wife is smart enough to have been able to make that distinction as well.

[vontar]

I have an idea, You may or may not like this. She should follow the case very closely and prepare to write a book. And I swear you guys should CUT ME IN on this if it works.

Potential Juror, the case of ....

You know how allot of high profile cases Jury members write books after wards. She can write a book on it. Hey it is a long shot but she is kinda linked.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have an idea, You may or may not like this. She should follow the case very closely and prepare to write a book. And I swear you guys should CUT ME IN on this if it works.

Potential Juror, the case of ....

You know how allot of high profile cases Jury members write books after wards. She can write a book on it. Hey it is a long shot but she is kinda linked.

She was dismissed.

Dolomite

[vontar]

I know she was dismissed I was trying to make something, I guess I didn't find the write words. You are right Potential was not correct. We have determined I am not a writer.

I was thinking Potential up until being dismissed before trial.

[bajabuc]

I'd be thinking it would be the defense that would object to her being on the jury. The prosecutor should love having her. Except...they weren't her guns.

[DaveTN]

There isn’t anything wrong with that particular part of it. It’s an adversarial system. Each side can dismiss a certain number of jurors. At least we have that option as opposed to an Inquisitorial system.

Your wife apparently felt strong enough about the 2^ndto give a speech during jury selection. That kind of passion may cause the Prosecutor to believe that your wife couldn’t make a decision based solely on the evidence. If you were prosecuting someone on weapons charges you wouldn’t want someone who has a problem with our states laws.

If I was on trial on a weapons charge and someone walked inwearing a Brady Bunch or Mother Against Guns lapel pin; I hope they would get kicked also.

I could never be on a jury where the death sentence is a possibility. I don’t believe in it and would not be part of it no matter what the evidence showed. Is that unfair to the accused? I don’t know, but I have to do what I believe in.

Of course it’s all about convictions. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are dismissed or resolved before trial. It makes a Prosecutor look bad if they take a case to trial when they don’t have the evidence to get a conviction.

[Guest db99wj]

There isn’t anything wrong with that particular part of it. It’s an adversarial system. Each side can dismiss a certain number of jurors. At least we have that option as opposed to an Inquisitorial system.

Your wife apparently felt strong enough about the 2^ndto give a speech during jury selection. That kind of passion may cause the Prosecutor to believe that your wife couldn’t make a decision based solely on the evidence. If you were prosecuting someone on weapons charges you wouldn’t want someone who has a problem with our states laws.

If I was on trial on a weapons charge and someone walked inwearing a Brady Bunch or Mother Against Guns lapel pin; I hope they would get kicked also.

I could never be on a jury where the death sentence is a possibility. I don’t believe in it and would not be part of it no matter what the evidence showed. Is that unfair to the accused? I don’t know, but I have to do what I believe in.

Of course it’s all about convictions. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are dismissed or resolved before trial. It makes a Prosecutor look bad if they take a case to trial when they don’t have the evidence to get a conviction.

Wow.

This.

The goal that the prosecution and the defense, when questioning potential jurors is to get the most neutral jury pool so that no preconceived notions influence the decisions made by that jury. This is beneficial on both aspects due to the possibility of a mistrial being called and issues during appeal. While her stance did get her dismissed, I don't see the issue in the judicial system in this case. This is done so that the jury pool isn't stacked against/for one side. Of course, each side tries to get, tries to see qualities of the potential juror that would help them in their case, but the system in place, gives the prosecutor/defense, equal ability to pick and vet each juror.

In this case, anyone that was strongly pro-gun or strongly anti-gun would be dismissed. With your wife's speech that she made, put her to far out of what the Jury pool needed to be.

[Worriedman]

Don't both sides just get a set number of dismissal chances, they don't get to keep going ad infinitum do they?

[Guest WyattEarp]

• I told her that I was proud of her for taking the stand she took. What I find upsetting is that because a law abiding person takes a public stance in SUPPORT of a right protected by our Constitution, she is deemed unfit to fullfill a duty that is ALSO protected by our Constitution.

I ask all of you here, what is wrong with this picturre?

watch the movie "Runaway Jury" and you will understand why she was dismissed. I don't know by your post if she made it to the Voir Dire part of the jury selection, but usually a prosecutor and a defense attorney have a certain number of peremptory challenges they can use.

Believe it not, the prosecutor and the defense attorney both knew more about your wife than you might think. They probably knew her political preferences, stance on firearms, where she works, etc. the D.A. and defense attorney play cat and mouse in Voir Dire in attempt to gain favoritism with the jury.

If she wasn't excused by reason of peremptory challenge, then perhaps they felt she had already potentially formed an opinion on the case "prior" to any evidence being heard and felt it in the best interest of the case to disallow her from further continuing in the juror selection process.