I am kinda hoping time served....
Local judge just threw the book at a heroin dealer with several priors. 20 years !
....with all but 4 (four) days suspended and time served.
I am kinda hoping time served....
You realize they don't have to offer anything, right? Besides the judge can impose whatever sentence he wants after conviction assuming no mandatory minimums. Sometimes in civil disobedience cases the judge will give a day. Besides, the prosecutors rarely ask for the max after conviction anyways in civil disobedience cases. If you don't like the sentencing range, tell your politicians that operating a gyrocopter without a license doesn't deserve 9 years in prison.
Yeah, he should have taken the deal. For sure he's going to be convicted. He could have faced a much lower penalty if he had at least registered his stunt plane.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
With a jury trial, there could be a possibility for juror nullification.
I hope he wins...... He probably won't, the feds don't want to lose and will use tons of our tax dollars to make an example of him.
Yeah, almost unheard of especially with today's jury instructions. And the defendant isn't allowed to even hint at juror nullification so it's very hard for jurors to know about it. If your only hope is juror nullification, you're toast. Even in cases where you get a person or two who are inclined to nullify, you have the 10 or 11 other jurors upset at them for wasting everyone else's time, because the judge will make them keep trying to reach a unanimous verdict. So very rarely do you get a juror who knows about nullification and has the fortitude to endure 5 days of bashing by fellow jurors before a mistrial is declared. Don't forget that the any potential jurors with an anti-government bent are going to get tosser. Each of them has to say that they're going to follow the law as instructed by the judge. If they don't, they're removed for cause. And if the prosecutors find out who the obstruction is, they're going to investigate him/her and see if s/he lied on the juror questionnaire or under oath during voir dire. And if so, you can bet that juror is going to be tossed and an alternate who isn't bent on nullification will be seated.Very few jurors are aware of this and the prosecuting attorneys hate it, see it as an abomination....but it is one of the public's tools in seeing real justice done. I would be all over that in this case.
His only felony is flying without a registration.
If that's a felony, there are a whole lot of potential felons out there.
If that's a felony, there are a whole lot of potential felons out there.
I'm calling total BS on all of this. Convenient that there are no media reports. And what "severe repercussions" could there possibly be? Every journalist knows about the first amendment, no "threat of severe repercussions" from the government would stop a journalist from reporting on a story.A couple\three points:
1. No one would have ever heard of him or his message if he had been on a bicycle, car or truck.
2. What is happening right now is the classic big government threat. "We will destroy you because we can." He is correct and courageous for refusing the deal.
3. Most people have no idea just how out of control our government is. Some examples:
People were trapped in their cars for 2 hours in Chappaqua because Bill and Hillary were arguing over what they were going to do that day. The Secret Service blocked the streets and refused to allow anyone to move. I was in one of those cars
A bus load of kindergarten kids were held for 6 hours, at gunpoint, in Dutchess County, NY. Their particular crime against society? The bus was 15 minutes behind schedule, and came down a road that was blocked by the Secret Service because the Vice President decided to go pheasant hunting that day. This was less than 3 miles from my house.
In both cases the press was notified, during and after the events and they refused to report on it because they were threatened with "severe repercussions" if they did.
We're hardly representative of your average juror and I'm a lawyer, so... Most jurors are ijits -- the smart ones or knowledgeable ones get excused. Remember, you are weeding out the people who know anything about the case, so your starting pool is composed of people who don't follow the news at all, not even Fox News.The fact that in addition to me that two other posters on this rather small representation of the American populace knew what I meant by juror nullification illustrates that it is a term that is known well enough to be a possible factor.
I'm calling total BS on all of this. Convenient that there are no media reports. And what "severe repercussions" could there possibly be? Every journalist knows about the first amendment, no "threat of severe repercussions" from the government would stop a journalist from reporting on a story.
It would have to be an exceedingly rare case. Prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Neb. Press. Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 US 539, 559 (1976). I'm not aware of any prior restraint involving national security being upheld in the history of modern US jurisprudence. In fact, prior restraints have even failed where a newsrag wanted to publish an article intricately explaining the design of a hydrogen bomb -- back in the 1970s. See US v. Progressive, Inc., 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979).The courts have accepted "clear and present danger" as a reason for prior restraint.
Well, I'm no legal scholar, just a simple Indiana country boy turned aircraft mechanic and pilot so I would think quite a few folks understand the concept and even if they did not know that it existed as a defined term, they might still deem it appropriate to exercise it on their own accord.We're hardly representative of your average juror and I'm a lawyer, so... Most jurors are ijits -- the smart ones or knowledgeable ones get excused. Remember, you are weeding out the people who know anything about the case, so your starting pool is composed of people who don't follow the news at all, not even Fox News.
Yeah, almost unheard of especially with today's jury instructions. And the defendant isn't allowed to even hint at juror nullification so it's very hard for jurors to know about it. If your only hope is juror nullification, you're toast. Even in cases where you get a person or two who are inclined to nullify, you have the 10 or 11 other jurors upset at them for wasting everyone else's time, because the judge will make them keep trying to reach a unanimous verdict. So very rarely do you get a juror who knows about nullification and has the fortitude to endure 5 days of bashing by fellow jurors before a mistrial is declared. Don't forget that the any potential jurors with an anti-government bent are going to get tosser. Each of them has to say that they're going to follow the law as instructed by the judge. If they don't, they're removed for cause. And if the prosecutors find out who the obstruction is, they're going to investigate him/her and see if s/he lied on the juror questionnaire or under oath during voir dire. And if so, you can bet that juror is going to be tossed and an alternate who isn't bent on nullification will be seated.
Basically, juror nullification happens but it's increasingly rare. I can't remember the last time it happened.
Well technically nullification isn't effective until there is an acquittal or a decision not to retry. So unless the jurors all agreed not to give the death penalty, you would probably just get a mistrial as to the sentencing phase, but I'm just guessing. However, a requirement of being on a death qualified jury is that the jurors not be categorically opposed to the death penalty.So.....
Suppose a juror gets through the trial phase and the plaintiff is found guilty of 1st degree murder....
Now the penalty phase comes around.... And one holdout for life over the death penalty throws a wrench in the gears of common sense.. Ie,, the slut who killed her BF in AZ....
Can that liberal minded juror get pitched and the nullification get overturned ?
Well technically nullification isn't effective until there is an acquittal or a decision not to retry. So unless the jurors all agreed not to give the death penalty, you would probably just get a mistrial as to the sentencing phase, but I'm just guessing. However, a requirement of being on a death qualified jury is that the jurors not be categorically opposed to the death penalty.
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.Nice try legal eagle....
Now please answer the question....
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1. If it's a true nullification, meaning that the jurors have unanimously agreed not to impose the death penalty (because one person had a categorical objection to the death penalty), it's done, finished, kaput. You cannot revisit that decision.
2. If it's just a mistrial because there was a 1+ juror holdout, a mistrial would be declared and an entirely new set of jurors would re-sit through the sentencing phase of the trial (all the mitigating evidence against the death penalty, evidence supporting the death penalty, etc. would all be re-shown to the new jury). So you couldn't throw off the single juror, you'd have to re-sit an entirely new jury panel.
3. If a juror made comments during the sentencing phase, but before deliberations, that s/he was categorically opposed to the imposition of the death penalty and in no circumstances would vote for death, one of two things would happen. Either that individual juror would be chucked and an alternate would be seated, or a mistrial would be declared and an entirely new panel would be seated. It would depend on the circumstances, I guess.
In practice for this to happen, a juror would have to lie during voir dire. Because prospective jurors who say that they would never impose the death penalty (or those who say that they would always impose the death penalty) will not be seated.
Bingo.... Winner ,winner... Chicken Dinner...
Ya, but like I said in my (edited) post, Arias was 8-4 so it wasn't that kind of a situation. You had jurors who just legitimately didn't want to impose the death penalty in that case. In the re-trial, it was 11-1, so that lone holdout might have been a nullifier, or he might have had the same objections as the previous 4. Hard to tell.
Legitimately is basically any reason other than a categorical opposition to the death penalty. Again, the imposition of the death penalty is almost entirely discretionary. So unless you have jurors going into it before hearing the evidence saying "there is no way I will ever impose the death penalty," any decision is legitimate. Jurors are instructed to basically search their conscience and come to a decision they feel comfortable with -- for any reason.Define LEGITIMATELY......
Neither one of us were in the jury. From what I've heard in the media, I personally think she deserved the death penalty -- especially because of the lack of remorse she displayed (she seems like a manipulative viper, to put it nicely). But she put on a real sob story for the jurors about how she was abused and has mental problems, so who knows what they heard, what they deliberated about, and what they were thinking. I'm not in a position to second-guess, and really neither is anyone else except the other jurors and people who were actually at the trial and heard all of the evidence. As I'm sure you know, the media is not super reliable when it comes to presenting balanced coverage.
LOL you had doubts?Darn..... Just when I was going to put you on my ignore list, you appear to be actually human.......
Now I guess I have to buy the first round of drinks....
How did we get from 'affixing postal markings to a non postal vehicle' to the death penalty ?
Btw, if you look at the non postal vehicle statute, one of the requirements for conviction is that he not be carrying us mail. I thought he was? (500+ letters?) Plus, that statute might very well be unconstitutional. I think the US Attorney would be dumb to pursue it.
Btw, if you look at the non postal vehicle statute, one of the requirements for conviction is that he not be carrying us mail. I thought he was? (500+ letters?) Plus, that statute might very well be unconstitutional. I think the US Attorney would be dumb to pursue it.
Local judge just threw the book at a heroin dealer with several priors. 20 years !
....with all but 4 (four) days suspended and time served.
His only felony is flying without a registration.
There are no federal sentencing guidelines for this.
During the sentencing phase (if he's found guilty) precedent comes into play. I know several who flew with their registration expired, and received nothing but a letter as punishment. I haven't heard of anybody who has served a single day.
They will play aggravating circumstances, but it'll be interesting.
I hope he wins...... He probably won't, the feds don't want to lose and will use tons of our tax dollars to make an example of him.
Yeah, almost unheard of especially with today's jury instructions. And the defendant isn't allowed to even hint at juror nullification so it's very hard for jurors to know about it. If your only hope is juror nullification, you're toast. Even in cases where you get a person or two who are inclined to nullify, you have the 10 or 11 other jurors upset at them for wasting everyone else's time, because the judge will make them keep trying to reach a unanimous verdict. So very rarely do you get a juror who knows about nullification and has the fortitude to endure 5 days of bashing by fellow jurors before a mistrial is declared. Don't forget that the any potential jurors with an anti-government bent are going to get tosser. Each of them has to say that they're going to follow the law as instructed by the judge. If they don't, they're removed for cause. And if the prosecutors find out who the obstruction is, they're going to investigate him/her and see if s/he lied on the juror questionnaire or under oath during voir dire. And if so, you can bet that juror is going to be tossed and an alternate who isn't bent on nullification will be seated.
Basically, juror nullification happens but it's increasingly rare. I can't remember the last time it happened.
It would have to be an exceedingly rare case. Prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Neb. Press. Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 US 539, 559 (1976). I'm not aware of any prior restraint involving national security being upheld in the history of modern US jurisprudence. In fact, prior restraints have even failed where a newsrag wanted to publish an article intricately explaining the design of a hydrogen bomb -- back in the 1970s. See US v. Progressive, Inc., 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979).
Because the Court found in Nebraska Press that the “barriers to prior restraint remain high and the presumption against its use continues intact,” prior restraint orders are rarely upheld. As a result, editorial decisions about publication of information the government deems sensitive are generally left solely to the discretion of news organizations.
The Supreme Court has recognized that, theoretically, publication of some information may be restrained to protect national security. However, when The New York Times and Washington Post began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a study regarding U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the government tried to stop publication, the Supreme Court refused to uphold prior restraints on the newspapers because the government had failed to make a sufficient showing of harm to national security. See New York Times v. US, 403 US 713 (1971).
Besides, any prior restraint must be ordered by a judge (which would receive immediate and expedited appellate review). A random government official or secret service agent has no authority to order a restraint on speech. Unless these restrictions are authorized by a judge who has found a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice, officials cannot order reporters not to publish lawfully obtained information. The decision to publish in such contexts is a matter of ethical considerations, not legal restraints.
Like I said, I'm calling total BS on the previous poster.
No clue. Didn't know the background on why they were charging him either. Do ULs not require registration?The way they charged him, the parent of any kid that paints 'US Mail' on the side of his red-ryder wagon is subject to federal indictment.
Reading the law itself, it looks like it was intended to restrain private steamboat companies from gaining a competitive advantage by claiming that they carried US mail.
The felony they charged him with requires you to 'knowingly and willfully' operate an aircraft eligible for registration without such a registration. He bought an ultralight and was a couple of pounds overweight, we'll see how they set out to prove that he was 'knowingly and willfully' operating above the part 103 weight limit. Has anyone else ever been criminally charged for flying too heavy of an UL ?