"Jury of One's Peers"?
David / Amicus
Ray O'Hara
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17666-4B0...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
> Could someone explain just what that means?
>
fellow citizens.
you know, everyone is equal under the law. so taht makes us all peers, we
are equal under the law.,
Michael Black
> Could someone explain just what that means?
>
>
Once upon a time, the King's decision was final. The rules
he made were made up as he went along, kill that one because
of this, kill this one because of that.
Since the King couldn't deal with it all, others became his
agents, and their laws were just as arbitrary.
Then the peasants were revolting, and some of the consideration
they got was a consistent set of laws, maybe initially quite harsh but not
set by the whim of the decision maker.
Eventually juries were set up to decide whether someone was guilty or not.
SHift that decision making away from the King and his crony, who had a
whole different set of power, shift the decision making away from the
judges even, who were also some segment of the population different from
the population at large.
But having a jury to judge someone wouldn't mean a thing if the jury was
made up of judges and kings, the people who had traditionally made
the decisions. So "a jury of one's peers" was created, the notion of
judgement not by some higher power, but by your own equals.
Michael
theget
> Could someone explain just what that means?
Someone who is your peer is your equal before the law. In principle,
as Ray O'Hara pointed out, we are all equal before the law, so all of
us are peers.
However, I've read about some verdicts being thrown out because
certain classes of people were excluded from the jury. Sorry, no cite,
but I think the most common example of this has to do with race.
It is likely that the phrase as used today descends from Magna Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
A convicted felon who is being tried for another crime is not entitled
to a jury of convicted felons.
Theget
David Johnston
wrote:
>Could someone explain just what that means?
Originally? It meant that commoners were entitled to a jury of
commoners and nobles were entitled to a jury of nobles.
Martin Edwards
That's right. It's one of the hokey phrases that hang around in legal
English when they have no real application.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Hunter
Ami...@webtv.net says...
> Could someone explain just what that means?
Technically simply a citizen. Theoretically we are all equal before
the law. Before that it it meant originally from the same social
station you are, not a aristocrat or someone "above" you in some way
but your neighbors, your fellow farmers for instance. It then became
just a citizen, but in a way it has gotten back to the "social
station" qualification as before, this time including have a
racially/ethnically and/or financial income balanced jury that is
roughly the same as the defendant. It is the effect of the past when
minorities particularly blacks in the South, were effectively banned
as jurors, so you particularly got all white juries convicting
innocent minority defendants when they are accused of committing
crimes against whites or, conversely, all white juries letting off
"obviously" guilty whites when they commit crimes against minorities.
As a result there have been efforts to make sure there is a
reasonable balance in the jury that reflects the more or less the
same socioeconomic background the defendant is, even perhaps moving
the venue of the trial to get it.
Regardless of course, jury consultants on both sides try to get
jurors that would most likely see the facts the way the prosecution
or defense would see it. They will even use race, political and
religious and other beliefs as guides and finagle a reason to either
keep them or exclude them, even if it is illegal to ban a juror based
on race-although both get a certain number of chances to just ban a
juror without giving a reason. And of course even if there are trends
among groups of people Jurors aren't always that predictable. For
instance a Black middle, working or poor class juror even if trends
say he should be suspicious of the police and the power structure may
turn out to be even sicker of the crime in his neighborhood-assuming
he lives in a mostly black neighborhood- an would be *more* likely to
convict a black defendant if he is an accused gang banger or
something while a white rich juror may see in that same gang banger
all that is wrong in society that helped him make him into that and
would be inclined to acquit.
You bash the two sides-prosecution and defense-selections and you,
hopefully, get a fair jury of your peers.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
theget
> That's right. It's one of the hokey phrases that hang around in legal
> English when they have no real application.
That's an interesting point. Are there other examples of that?
How about "corruption of the blood"? Or is that still in effect?
Theget
David Johnston
<big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:26:41 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone explain just what that means?
>>
>> Originally? It meant that commoners were entitled to a jury of
>> commoners and nobles were entitled to a jury of nobles.
>
>That's right. It's one of the hokey phrases that hang around in legal
>English when they have no real application.
Actually in modern terms it does have one real application. It means
that the jury can not be made up of, say, law enforcement
professionals or jurists. And it also means that military men are
tried by military men and not by civilians.
Michael Black
I'm not sure the last is the case.
The armed forces have traditionally been separate from the rest of
society, their own sets of laws. So they have their own court system,
and their own prison system. Hence they will be judged by other military
personel, but not because they are equal, but because the military wants
their own rules.
Michael
Hunter
et...@ncf.ca says...
Yep, anyone who saw a lot of "JAG" knows this.
Seriously, I think it is that military duties have many things and
situations that the average civilian aren't subject to or encounters,
so a different legal system is required, whether it is for actions
during war or not carrying out some-to a civilian-arcane military
regulation.
The guy who allegedly shot up Fort Hood is going to be tried under
military law because the crime was on a military base and he is a
Captain in the Army.
David Johnston
wrote:
All of those considerations applied to the nobility back when this
expression originated.
Ray O'Hara
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:13q5g5ttmr33kned8...@4ax.com...
Military personel who commit crimes like robbing civilian banks are subject
to civil law.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
about a court martial.
Martin Edwards
England accused of murder was dealt with by the American military. In
WWII this was the norm, which led to the scandal of black men being
hanged officially for rape, actually for having sex with white women.
Martin Edwards
Some years ago in England a rumour went round that a sure way to get out
of jury service was to wear a business suit and carry a copy of the
right wing "Daily Telegraph". The defence would object automatically.
theget
> Some years ago in England a rumour went round that a sure way to get out
> of jury service was to wear a business suit and carry a copy of the
> right wing "Daily Telegraph". The defence would object automatically.
I knew someone who planned on dressing down and bringing a copy of
this magazine, http://hightimes.com/ expecting that the prosecution
would object.
When I've gone for jury duty they don't allow printed matter,
newspapers, books, etc. into the court room, so I'm not sure this
would work. At least not in the states.
NB I am not offering this story as advice on how to get out of jury
duty.
Theget
Hunter
750049...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
says...
Not so in New York State. In all the times I been called to Jury Duty
I brought in magazines to read in the jury waiting room to be called
and also brought them in during voir dire (but not reading when court
was in session with the judge there of course); and in the four times
I actually served on a jury getting on a case we were allowed
newspapers, magazines, books after being charged in the deliberation
room as well. Of course if we were sequestered then it would be a
different matter, but in all the cases I was on we were allowed to go
home after court during the finding of fact and after we were given
the case so it doesn't really matter if we did have newspapers and
the like since we were getting the news the morning before anyway.