1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Can judges turn a constitutional democracy into fascism?

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 10 08:44:28 2021
    the pro-defense bias of Judge Schroeder (especially his open disdain for the prosecutor) in the rittenhouse case is painful to watch and is ominous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to S K on Wed Nov 10 09:49:27 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, S K wrote:
    the pro-defense bias of Judge Schroeder (especially his open disdain for the prosecutor) in the rittenhouse case is painful to watch and is ominous.

    he just snarled like an animal at the prosecutor just now.

    these right wing conservative codger judges pose a clear and present threat of fascism.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 10 09:53:53 2021
    Lets close this thread. We seem to strayed off the legal questions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to Roy on Wed Nov 10 10:10:14 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
    Lets close this thread. We seem to strayed off the legal questions.

    you don't think protecting consitutional rule is a legal question?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to S K on Wed Nov 10 09:45:29 2021
    On 11/10/2021 8:44 AM, S K wrote:

    the pro-defense bias of Judge Schroeder (especially his open disdain for the prosecutor) in the rittenhouse case is painful to watch and is ominous.

    He does seem to be somewhat pro-defense. But to tell the truth, I'd
    rather a judge leaned toward the defense than toward the prosecution. We already have too many people in prison for things they didn't do. (Maybe
    1%-3%, but that's still too many IMO)

    His ruling on the use of the word "victim" is consistent with his past
    trials.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to Roy on Wed Nov 10 12:35:27 2021
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
    Lets close this thread. We seem to strayed off the legal questions.

    the judge snarled like an animal at the prosecuttor for pulling a trick lawyers do all the time -

    ask a question that was agreed was not allowed and get chided for it - but the jury has heard it anyway.

    the judge almost melted down with fury - does he have the right to declare a mistrial with prejudice?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to S K on Wed Nov 10 13:55:19 2021
    On 11/10/2021 12:35 PM, S K wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
    Lets close this thread. We seem to strayed off the legal questions.
    the judge snarled like an animal at the prosecuttor for pulling a trick lawyers do all the time -

    ask a question that was agreed was not allowed and get chided for it - but the jury has heard it anyway.

    the judge almost melted down with fury - does he have the right to declare a mistrial with prejudice?

    Does he have the power? Yes. And that would end the case -- double jeopardy.

    But it would not be a good thing to do. Judges only do that when they
    are convinced that the prosecution has screwed things so badly that
    there is no hope of a fair trial. Even then, he would be more likely to "entertain a motion for mistrial" from the defense. If the judge grants
    a mistrial at the defense's motion, Rittenhouse can be tried again.

    But Rittenhouse seems to have a pretty strong "self-defense" case -- the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonble doubt that the mythical
    "reasonable person" would not have thought he was in physical danger in
    that situation. That's a pretty tough row to hoe given the circumstances (people coming at him with makeshift weapons, someone trying to take his
    rifle away).


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sat Nov 13 06:06:04 2021
    On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:55:19 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

    But it would not be a good thing to do. Judges only do that when they
    are convinced that the prosecution has screwed things so badly that
    there is no hope of a fair trial.

    If we make the judge the arbiter of what's fair, then what's the point of
    a jury ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 13 07:15:11 2021
    On 11/13/2021 6:06 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:55:19 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

    But it would not be a good thing to do. Judges only do that when they
    are convinced that the prosecution has screwed things so badly that
    there is no hope of a fair trial.
    If we make the judge the arbiter of what's fair, then what's the point of
    a jury ?


    A jury is supposed to decide the facts of the case: has the prosecution
    proved each element of the alleged crime?

    If there is a reasonable doubt about _any_ element, the jury is supposed
    to find the defendant Not Guilty.

    A judge has two jobs. One is to interpret the law. The other is to
    ensure a fair trial. That means he is supposed to prevent the
    introduction of evidence that is more likely to prejudice the jury
    against (or for) the defendant than to prove anything about the elements
    of the alleged crime.

    The same for questions: if a question seems to be intended more to
    influence the jury against (or for) the defendant than to prove any of
    the facts, then the judge won't allow the question to be answered, and
    will tell the jury to disregard the question. [There is a lot of debate
    about how effective such an instruction is. As the saying goes, "you
    can't unring a bell."]

    And if the prosecution seems to be intent on prejudicing the jury rather
    than proving the elements of the crime, it is quite reasonable for the
    judge to grant a defense motion for a mistrial, either with or without prejudice, depending on how bad the prosecutorial misconduct is.

    Note that if the defense engages in similar attacks (e.g., a "she
    deserved to die" defense), the judge cannot grant a mistrial. if that
    happens the judge can find the defense lawyer in Contempt and send him
    to jail (e.g., for a day or two while the court is not in session, or
    longer after the trial is over) and/or refer him to the state's legal
    ethics body for possible discipline. That's because of "double jeopardy".

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 13 09:56:22 2021
    On 11/13/2021 9:06 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 13:55:19 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

    But it would not be a good thing to do. Judges only do that when they
    are convinced that the prosecution has screwed things so badly that
    there is no hope of a fair trial.

    If we make the judge the arbiter of what's fair, then what's the point of
    a jury ?

    The constitution is designed to protect the minority from the
    persecution of the majority (i.e. it takes much more than a 50.000001%
    vote to do something like repeal the 4th amendment, etc.)

    The jury is there to also provide such protections against someone being falsely prosecuted/punished and the idea is that if you can convince a super-majority, then there's no question the person is guilty (as
    opposed to just convincing a single person or just a simple 51%
    majority.) But even then the judge may decide that there's still going
    to wind up being "the majority persecuting the minority" due to bad
    actions on the behalf of the DA and over-rule such by declaring a
    mistrial with prejudice.

    Basically the whole "it's better to let 100 crooks go free than to
    punish one innocent man" (not saying I agree with that but also not
    saying I don't) where the judge can let someone go free. So in effect,
    the judge can become a 13th juror that hangs the jury (but as Barry
    said, they don't do that often at all.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)