NC Judge blatantly violates right to trial by jury

[shanek]

This is unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-500900.html

Tongues wagged in amazement after a judge interrupted a jury trial in Durham County Superior Court this week and found the defendant guilty of causing a fatal school bus accident.

"Bizarre" and "unconstitutional" were just two of the words other judges and lawyers used to describe Judge Abraham Jones' action in the case of Regina Skinner, who was appealing a misdemeanor-death-by-vehicle conviction from a lower court.

After the prosecution finished presenting its evidence, and before the defense could offer any testimony, Jones declared Skinner guilty.

"I've never heard of that being done before," said chief Public Defender Bob Brown, whose office represented Skinner.

"As far as I can tell from my research, only a jury can make a finding of guilt," Brown added Wednesday. "I think this violates the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution requires the jury to make determinations of guilt. I don't care how guilty you are. The jury always has to make the determination."

North Carolina's chief appellate defender, Staples Hughes, whose office is in Durham, put it more bluntly.

"It's absolutely unconstitutional," he said.

Raleigh's senior Superior Court Judge, Don Stephens, agreed that such cases "can only be resolved by a jury of 12."

Article 1, Section 24 of the state Constitution says that criminal defendants have an absolute right to a jury trial when they want one. "No person can be convicted of a crime but by the unanimous decision of a jury in open court," the article states.

The U.S. Constitution also makes the right to a jury trial clear.

The only way a suspect can waive that right is by pleading guilty or no contest.

"There's no such thing as that," District Judge Craig Brown agreed Wednesday. "I've never heard of such a thing. It's up to the jury. The jury is the trier of fact. Only the jury is empowered to determine guilt or innocence."

The N.C. Supreme Court declared in 1893 that "the court cannot direct a verdict in a criminal case."

I'm in awe. Just in awe. That judge should be impeached. Immediately.

[Whoracle]

He definitely needs to be fired Donald Trump style.

[Zep]

Best law north, south, east AND west of the Pecos!

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by shanek
This is unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-500900.html







I'm in awe. Just in awe. That judge should be impeached. Immediately.
Looks like he works for Bush.

[Suddenly]

Two words: Stupid judge.

Doesn't understand the difference between civil and criminal litigation. I've seen such things before, but usually dealing with discovery and other collateral matters. Most people that manage to graduate from law school and pass the bar figure out that you can't direct a verdict in a criminal trial.

wait a minute....

But [Judge] Jones, a Harvard University graduate...

Aha!! That explains it.

(I mean it explains how someone that dense wound up being a judge)

[Tmy]

Hes not stupid, hes just crazy!

Lots of Judges are on the bench for life. Until they want to retire. If they start getting the oldtimerz or somthing, they still might go on for a while.

Some places have age limits for this sort of reason.

[crimresearch]

I had the pleasure of taking cases before a well known US Magistrate who had overstayed his prime shall we say...he was notorious for falling asleep in mid sentence, leaving the entire courtroom to wait for 5 or or 10 or 20 minutes until he would bolt awake, look around, and make some irrelevant pronouncement about the defendant, as though he hadn't missed a beat.

[Ipecac]

In the end, the defendant will benefit from this bizarre behavior. The conviction will be overturned and they likely won't try her again.

[Rob Lister]

I agree, he doesn't seem like the brightest bulb/sharpest knife/etc, but at least he knows he (once again!) screwed up.

Update:

Judge says he erred in finding of guilt

DURHAM -- Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones acknowledged Thursday that he erred when he bypassed a jury this week and found a criminal defendant guilty of causing a fatal school bus accident.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-501400.html

http://www.heraldsun.com/images/photos/live/7jurors223442004714.jpg

See, he's even praying you'll forgive him.

Or maybe he's deep in thought.

Or maybe he has bad teeth.

Or maybe he's making shadow puppets.

[Tony]

I smell racism. Was the defendant a white person?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
I smell racism. Was the defendant a white person? I smell a pea-brained forum poster who sees a black face in a picture and automatically assumes it belongs to a racist.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
I smell a pea-brained forum poster who sees a black face in a picture and automatically assumes it belongs to a racist.

Rather than vice-versa, eh?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Rather than vice-versa, eh? Show me the case, and we can discuss. Otherwise, don't go making your own assumptions.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Tony
I smell racism. Was the defendant a white person?

Why do you smell racism?

Do you think that the judge's decision would have been less wrong if he had been white?

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
I smell a pea-brained forum poster who sees a black face in a picture and automatically assumes it belongs to a racist.

I suggest you take a shower and actually wash this time. That smell should go away.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
Show me the case, and we can discuss. Otherwise, don't go making your own assumptions.

Does your mask include a helmet?

It should.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


I suggest you take a shower and actually wash this time. That smell should go away. I guess we're off topic now. Oh well, whatever works for you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by drkitten
Why do you smell racism?


Why not? A person of a certain race has abused his power. If it was a white judge who did this to a black defendant, accusations of racism would be made by the NAACP. I see no reason why I shouldn't follow in their great tradition of standing up for civil rights. White people deserve civil rights yes?

Was the defendant white?

Do you think that the judge's decision would have been less wrong if he had been white?

No.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Does your mask include a helmet?

It should. I think it's supposed to be funny, but I don't understand it.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Tony


Why not? A person of a certain race has abused his power. If it was a white judge who did this to a black defendant, accusations of racism would be made by the NAACP. I see no reason why I shouldn't follow in their great tradition of standing up for civil rights. White people deserve civil rights yes?

Was the defendant white?


So you're only willing to stand up for the defendant's civil rights if the defendant is white? Otherwise, why does it make a difference?

[Tony]

Originally posted by drkitten


So you're only willing to stand up for the defendant's civil rights if the defendant is white?

Non sequitor.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Tony


Non sequitor.

I agree.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Tony


Non sequitor.

Why does it matter if the defendant was white or not?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by drkitten


Why does it matter if the defendant was white or not?

Because, in this case, the charge of racism depends upon it.

Are you suggesting that the charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence? If so, I don't think THAT would be a non-sequitor.

It would even be accurate.

It would also miss the point.

[Tony]

Originally posted by drkitten


Why does it matter if the defendant was white or not?

I want to know if this is a case of racism or not.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Because, in this case, the charge of racism depends upon it.


How so? Doesn't racism depend on the motivation for an act rather than the status of the actors?

If I were a judge and convicted a guy because he was black would that not be racist no matter what color my skin is?

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If I were a judge and convicted a guy because he was black would that not be racist no matter what color my skin is?

Well, yes, I rather think so.

HOWEVER I've been hit with the claim that "only white people can be racist" and/or "only men can be sexist" quite a large number of times in my travels about the world and the net. The claim (easily shown false) is that only people in power can act in racist fashions.

Anyone who claims that never lived in a mine town or a mill town. DUH.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
I smell racism. Was the defendant a white person?

I believe Tony is making a satirical statement here. If for example the judge was white and the defendant was black -- is the current one white? -- you would see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other people with too much time on their hands. They would descend upon that town, pile up in churches, shout out “no justice no peace,” and then march on the courthouse or city hall.

However since race is out of the way here -- The Judge is black so "obviously" he can't be racist -- we can accurately call him crazy, stupid, incompetent, etc and move on.

It's just a sad state of affairs in America, if the black person appears to be in the wrong, so called activist groups shoot first and ask questions later.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I believe Tony is making a satirical statement here. If for example the judge was white and the defendant was black -- is the current one white? -- you would see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other people with too much time on their hands. They would descend upon that town, pile up in churches, shout out “no justice no peace,” and then march on the courthouse or city hall.

However since race is out of the way here -- The Judge is black so "obviously" he can't be racist -- we can accurately call him crazy, stupid, incompetent, etc and move on.

It's just a sad state of affairs in America, if the black person appears to be in the wrong, so called activist groups shoot first and ask questions later. I saw it differently. I take Tony to be pathetically obsessed with racial politics, a la Rush Limbaugh and the Donovan McNabb fiasco.

This story was about a crazy-ass judge who forgot that juries convict, not judges.

Then there was a picture of the judge, and it was seen that he is black.

Then Tony, without any other information, thinks it's a racism situation. Even if he was merely being sarcastic, he's going around looking under every single black rock for a racist bugaboo.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I believe Tony is making a satirical statement here. If for example the judge was white and the defendant was black -- is the current one white? -- you would see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other people with too much time on their hands. They would descend upon that town, pile up in churches, shout out “no justice no peace,” and then march on the courthouse or city hall.

However since race is out of the way here -- The Judge is black so "obviously" he can't be racist -- we can accurately call him crazy, stupid, incompetent, etc and move on.

It's just a sad state of affairs in America, if the black person appears to be in the wrong, so called activist groups shoot first and ask questions later.


Bingo.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
I saw it differently. I take Tony to be pathetically obsessed with racial politics, a la Rush Limbaugh and the Donovan McNabb fiasco.


Your take was incorrect. Try thinking for once instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions.

Then Tony, without any other information, thinks it's a racism situation.

People like myself and the NAACP don't need any other information.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


Your take was incorrect. Try thinking for once instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions.That's the purpose of thinking: to come to conclusions. I'll stick with mine until I have better information (better than your non-denial/denial).People like myself and the NAACP don't need any other information. Here's a case where you could think for yourself and stop taking your marching orders from the NAACP.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
That's the purpose of thinking: to come to conclusions. I'll stick with mine until I have better information (better than your non-denial/denial).

So you opt for bigotry, can't say I'm surprised.

Here's a case where you could think for yourself and stop taking your marching orders from the NAACP.

I'm sorry, but it appears my joke was over your head. Again, I'm not surprised considering your erroneous judgments of my previous statements in this thread.

[TragicMonkey]

Now, now, this is the twenty-first century. The judge's race doesn't matter. What matters is his lover's gender, if they intend to marry. Do let's focus on what's important!

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Most people that manage to graduate from law school and pass the bar figure out that you can't direct a verdict in a criminal trial.
That's not quite true. A judge can direct a not guilty verdict, it's the guilty vedict that is prohibited. Also, judges can reject certain types of not guilty pleas: for instance, if the defendent pleads not guilty by reason of self defense, the judge can rule against such a defense. It sounds like the judge thought that this was a similar situation. And if the maximum sentence is less than a year, the sixth amendment somehow doesn't apply. I don't quite get that one. According to the article, the defendent was charged with a misdeamor and apparently was not sentenced to any jail time. I don't know whether a similar exception exists with regard to the NC constitution, but according to the SCOTUS, the US constitution does not requireme a jury trial in such a case. Frankly, a $250 fine seems absurdly low for homicide, even if it was inadvertant. Driving solo in the carpool lane carries a higher penalty.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

That's not quite true. A judge can direct a not guilty verdict, it's the guilty vedict that is prohibited.
I've never practiced anywhere where they called it that in a criminal case. They generally just call it a judgment of acquital or a dismissal and not a directed verdict

Also, judges can reject certain types of not guilty pleas: for instance, if the defendent pleads not guilty by reason of self defense, the judge can rule against such a defense. Not really. A judge can only prohibit a jury from being instructed as to such a defense, and only if the defendant fails to present any evidence as to the defense.

It sounds like the judge thought that this was a similar situation. And if the maximum sentence is less than a year, the sixth amendment somehow doesn't apply. I don't quite get that one. Different states have different standards. The federal standard does not require a jury trial for petty offenses. A petty offense is generally defined as a misdemeanor, and typically this has a max penalty of 1 year in jail. North Carolina, like most states, has a tougher standard.

According to the article, the defendent was charged with a misdeamor and apparently was not sentenced to any jail time. I don't know whether a similar exception exists with regard to the NC constitution, but according to the SCOTUS, the US constitution does not requireme a jury trial in such a case. Frankly, a $250 fine seems absurdly low for homicide, even if it was inadvertant. Driving solo in the carpool lane carries a higher penalty. [/B] If it makes you feel any better that is $250 plus court costs, and with a jury trial that can run quite a bit.......

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If it makes you feel any better that is $250 plus court costs, and with a jury trial that can run quite a bit.......

Wait a minute...

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

If the fine is $250, then wouldn't the US Constitution demand that his right to trial by jury be preserved?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Wait a minute...

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

If the fine is $250, then wouldn't the US Constitution demand that his right to trial by jury be preserved?

A "suit at common law" refers only to a civil suit for damages and not a criminal prosecution.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek


Wait a minute...

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

If the fine is $250, then wouldn't the US Constitution demand that his right to trial by jury be preserved?

Not to quibble but $250 is a bit low in terms of real dollars. $400 would be more like it if you consider the currency as pegged to gold. $20 was, at the time, a little less than one ounce of gold.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
A "suit at common law" refers only to a civil suit for damages and not a criminal prosecution.

I'd like to see a reference for that. I haven't seen anything that restricts a common law court to just torts, and all sorts of references of common law crimes. I know that's generally how it's understood today, but NOT at the time the Bill of Rights was written.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Not to quibble but $250 is a bit low in terms of real dollars. $400 would be more like it if you consider the currency as pegged to gold. $20 was, at the time, a little less than one ounce of gold.

Actually, the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed the dollar at 371.25 grains of pure silver, which, according to Google, is 0.77 troy ounces. Silver is currently at $6.69 an ounce, so .77 of that is about $5.15. That would be the value of a Coinage Act dollar in modern Fed money. Multiplying by 20, we see that $20 at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified is about $103.02. So $250 does exceed the equivalent of $20 back then.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed the dollar at 371.25 grains of pure silver, which, according to Google, is 0.77 troy ounces. Silver is currently at $6.69 an ounce, so .77 of that is about $5.15. That would be the value of a Coinage Act dollar in modern Fed money. Multiplying by 20, we see that $20 at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified is about $103.02. So $250 does exceed the equivalent of $20 back then.

I chose gold because it was convenient and unbiased. Silver is also convenient but since that commodity was a fixing point at one of the two comparision points it is biased (the fixing impacts the market).

The best way is to take the average of n commodities. The greater the value n, the greater the accuracy, but it's going to approximate gold fairly closely.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I'd like to see a reference for that. I haven't seen anything that restricts a common law court to just torts, and all sorts of references of common law crimes. I know that's generally how it's understood today, but NOT at the time the Bill of Rights was written.

Read the sixth amendment. Then return and explain to me why you whole line of inquiry as to this issue is not pointless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I chose gold because it was convenient and unbiased.

I chose silver because the dollar was defined on that basis. So other commodities don't really matter.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Read the sixth amendment. Then return and explain to me why you whole line of inquiry as to this issue is not pointless.

Okay:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The only way I can see that the 6th Amendment would make this argument pointless is the reiteration of the right to trial by jury. However, what it actually states is that the jury shall be from the state and district where the crime was committed.

It does, however, specify "criminal" prosecutions, and many cases minor offenses are not persued in criminal court. This one was, but even of the one's that aren't they'd still have a right to trial by jury if the amount in question is over $20.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek


I chose silver because the dollar was defined on that basis. So other commodities don't really matter.

If silver was also currently defined on that basis, you'd have an argument. It isn't, so you don't. I really don't want to get into a debate about this as it is more than tangential to the thread, but if you don't understand this point then it either leads me to believe you understand very little or you understand so much that I cannot begin to understand you. I will, of course, presume the former. I'm sure you understand.

I have, in practice, taken one of the two positions already, but I'm a glutton for punishment...whichever case proves to be true.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If silver was also currently defined on that basis, you'd have an argument.

What does it matter what it's currently defined? We're talking about the value of $20 at the time the Bill of Rights was written. So, as far as I see it, there are two options: 1) 20 bucks is 20 bucks, or 2) you use the value of $20 as defined at the time, which ends up being 15.4 ounces of silver. I really don't see how any other interpretation is reasonable.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek




It does, however, specify "criminal" prosecutions, and many cases minor offenses are not persued in criminal court. This one was, but even of the one's that aren't they'd still have a right to trial by jury if the amount in question is over $20.

Can you explain how people are charged and convicted of a crime without it being a criminal prosecution?

Perhaps then you can read some of findlaw.com's annotations on the subject and learn that the 7th has only to do with civil cases, and at that only those civil cases that involve "rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action at equity or admiralty."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I've never practiced anywhere where they called it that in a criminal case. They generally just call it a judgment of acquital or a dismissal and not a directed verdict.
A matter of nomenclature. The point is that a conviction requires the jury to convict; an acquittal does not require the jury to acquit.


A judge can only prohibit a jury from being instructed as to such a defense, and only if the defendant fails to present any evidence as to the defense.
My understanding is that if a defendent wishes to pursue a not guilty by reason of self defense judgement, he must so plea at the beginning of the trial, and the judge may disallow such a plea.

The federal standard does not require a jury trial for petty offenses. A petty offense is generally defined as a misdemeanor, and typically this has a max penalty of 1 year in jail.
What I don't get is that the sixth amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions..." not "In all but petty criminal prosecutions..."

Rob Lister
If silver was also currently defined on that basis, you'd have an argument.
I don't see how that's neccessary. What relevant is how a dollar was defined at the time that the constitution was written. Clearly, the framers did not write it having supernatural knowledge of the definition of a dollar in 2004.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

A matter of nomenclature. The point is that a conviction requires the jury to convict; an acquittal does not require the jury to acquit.

I know your point. It is only relevant if you take my first comment as to "not being able to direct a verdict" out of the context in which I used it where we were discussing a guilty verdict and make some kind of weak nitpick point about directing a not-guilty verdict.

Likewise perhaps I can nitpick the above statement and point out that a Jury is not needed to acquit when 1) the defendant pleads guilty or 2) the defendant waives his right to a jury.

But that would be a waste of time since anyone with sense could apply the context and know we aren't talking about that.




My understanding is that if a defendent wishes to pursue a not guilty by reason of self defense judgement, he must so plea at the beginning of the trial, and the judge may disallow such a plea.

There are many different pleading stages as well as different statutory schemes. In general however, self-defense does not require a special plea and the judge must instruct the jury as to the defense if the defendant presents any evidence to support it.



What I don't get is that the sixth amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions..." not "In all but petty criminal prosecutions..."



Back then the usage of the word "crime" is not the same as it is now. Petty offenses were not considered included in that defintion. At least that is what the Supreme Court decided...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Can you explain how people are charged and convicted of a crime without it being a criminal prosecution?

By being charged and convicted of a petty crime, as you yourself said above?

Perhaps then you can read some of findlaw.com's annotations on the subject and learn that the 7th has only to do with civil cases, and at that only those civil cases that involve "rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action at equity or admiralty."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/

You could have just posted that to begin with...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Back then the usage of the word "crime" is not the same as it is now. Petty offenses were not considered included in that defintion. At least that is what the Supreme Court decided...

But then, if the petty crime carries with it a penalty greater than $20, don't we go back to the 7th Amendment, as per the info in your Findlaw citation?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But then, if the petty crime carries with it a penalty greater than $20, don't we go back to the 7th Amendment, as per the info in your Findlaw citation?

Findlaw info that it appears you either didn't read or understand.

Yes. You are right. Every court in American legal history that has failed to apply the 7th to petty criminal cases is wrong. Funny thing that means all of them including the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court whose reading of "crime" you accepted in an above post.

I would encourage you to make this assertion as often as possible. That way anyone with sense will know exactly the level of legal understanding they are dealing with.

Which is why perhaps I should encourage you to make these sorts of claims rather that attempt to correct your errors or give you the tools to educate yourself.

[shuize]

I thought Shanek summed things up nicely in a previous thread when he demonstrated* that the Supreme Court really doesn't have judicial review after all.


*"Demonstrated" being a term of art to describe how one's personal constitutional interpretations can fly in the face of 200 years of legal history.

It's o.k. though Shanek. Your economics acumen is unrivaled on this forum. Couple that with a legal education and you'd be unstoppable.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Findlaw info that it appears you either didn't read or understand.

Yes. You are right. Every court in American legal history that has failed to apply the 7th to petty criminal cases is wrong. Funny thing that means all of them including the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court whose reading of "crime" you accepted in an above post.

I would encourage you to make this assertion as often as possible. That way anyone with sense will know exactly the level of legal understanding they are dealing with.

Which is why perhaps I should encourage you to make these sorts of claims rather that attempt to correct your errors or give you the tools to educate yourself.

Man, such abuse in the face of a guy who was ASKING A F*CKING QUESTION!!!! What's your malfunction?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I know your point. It is only relevant if you take my first comment as to "not being able to direct a verdict" out of the context in which I used it where we were discussing a guilty verdict and make some kind of weak nitpick point about directing a not-guilty verdict.
I thought that it was reasonbly likely that someone might see your comment, hear about a case in which a judge dismissed a guilty verdict, and wonder what was going on. I was not "nitpicking", I was anticipating a possible point of confusion. My statement was not so uch directed at you (you probably ommitted it because you take it for granted, not because you are unaware of it), but at others not as familiar with the law. I think that many people are not aware that a judge can throw out a jury's determination of guilt.

I don't see how this is taking your coment "out of context"; the fact that this was dealing specifically and solely with directing a guilty verdict was, in my view, not made completely clear. After all, you don't expect the reader to think that it only applies in the context of NC, do you?