Jury Of His Peers

The sad part is that with the wrong judge/JP presiding, he could get exactly what he wants in the name of PC appeasement.

Jeez, the angling and racist maneuvering are galling in the extreme; not because they area allowed, but because of the random roll of the stupid appointee die, they might actually succeed.

Maybe I'm just ticked that I have no say in who gets appointed into these positions of power and influence and it's all sour grapes, but I doubt that I'm alone.

But...(deep breath), I'm willing to wait and see how the system works here.

Thanks Kate for (the spike in blood pressure)keeping us informed.

Just think of the reaction if a caucasian defendant demanded an all (or even "mostly") -white jury. How many death threats would he or she get? How quickly would their demand be dismissed out of hand? Is there any doubt that the media report would include words like "provocative" and "rascist"?

What is the world coming to?

Whoops. Obviously, I mizspelt "racist".

Wouldn't it be nice if there was one legal system for all Canadians? ... rather than special race-based exceptions for the native population...

Perhaps it is finally time to eliminate the soft bigotry of low expectations.

the fact that someone accused of a crime should have any say on who should be on the jury is preposterous in the extreme. They have a right to a "fair" trial. Being able to select their own jury is so far away from "fair" it's not even funny.

I take exception to the comment "worked for OJ". I watch most of the OJ trial as I was waiting for Medicare to get around to performing a knee operation and providing physio, the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. With the garbage DNA evidence, disappearing blood sample, gloves that didn't fit it is hard to imagine that any jury, white or black could have honestly returned with a guilty verdict.

So typical.

Play the race card and milk/bleed the system for everything you can.

Why not just hand this one over to a 'sentencing circle', so the guy can get his slap on the wrist and go home?

I don't give a rat's a** if Teerhuis is an Indian and wants a "jury of his peers."

He lives in Canada, he's a Canadian (he's got a Canadian social security card, right?, and a medicare card, and he's living off social assistance? I only ask because he's been living in a hotel...), so a jury of his peers simply has to have 12 members that are...Canadian.

That's it. Full stop.

Convene a jury of 12 Canadians and have done with it. If Teerhuis gets his way, and manages to manipulate the judicial system to give him what he wants (WAIT A MINUTE: HE'S IN JAIL; WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO IF THE COURTS REFUSE HIS REQUEST?) then he'll have managed to turn Canadian jurisprudence upside-down and inside-out.

Not that it isn't already almost there, but...let's put the brakes on this runaway vehicle.

DNA doesn't lie, Phil. OJ lost the civil suit filed later which essentially held him responsible for his wife's and Ronald Goldman's deaths. He was found guilty in a different legal venue without all of the shenanigans. The prosecution played the race card. They used Mark Furman to slap the black jury in the face with the inflammatory "N" word. They essentially created the diversion of trying past grievances with the white LAPD in the hood.

Ironically, if OJ had been tried with a jury of his real peers, his wealthy better educated white neighbors, he would have been convicted in a heartbeat.

Phil must be a liberal. He believes what he sees on TV...

Good God. How foolish must you be to think OJ innocent?

Actually once he gets to jail he will get a jury of his own peers,providing they dont put him in protective custody. If things go well , they will met out justice like our system is incapable of doing.

For the record, Penny and Warwick, while I disagree with Phil, he didn't say OJ was actually innocent. He said the state failed to meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That he was later found liable for wrongful death in civil court doesn't dispel that argument, since the civil burden of proof is the much lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

That said, this motion is madness, and so is everything I've read about the Canadian judicial system. Good Lord, I know I've only tried misdemeanors so far, but trials routinely lasting months? Put your panel in the box, pick six (or twelve) and let's go. Playing around like this is bullshit and is the act of defense attorneys TERRIFIED to face the prospect of a real trial. Oh, and from the article I gather WAY too many people in Canada are automatically exempt from jury service. Sitting judges I can understand, but MP's? ALL lawyers?! In Florida even PROSECUTORS aren't exempt (although we tend to get stricken in voir dire for obvious reasons): only sitting judges, the Governor and members of the cabinet are exempt.

WORDS FAIL ME !
So; ...
What do you say to a "native" wearing a suit and tie?
"Will the defendant please rise"?

Why do so many "natives" buy used RCMP cars?
They want to ride in the FRONT seat !

Racist? Perhaps, but, I wasn't born this way, I was made this way and the topic at hand is a prime example why !!

Boy quick to toss out the insults aren't we. Warwick perhaps I should say your illiterate as you seem to be incapable of reading and comprehending a few simple sentences. I said the state did not prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I never said he was innocent. Perhaps given your limited mental abilities you would be more at home at rabble.

Penny you believe the DNA evidence. The foremost expert in the world Dr. Henry Lee said that the evidence was collected and handled incorrectly and could not be consider valid. If you were on a jury in a murder trial and the most knowledgeable person in the world on the subject of DNA said that the crown's DNA evidence was corrupted and untrustworthy would you vote for a guilty verdict on that basis of the DNA evidence? I would hope the answer would be no. The verdict in the civil case means nothing. The standard of proof is much lower in a civil case than a criminal case and that is why he was found guilty in the wrongful death case. You can't apply the lower standards of the civil case to the criminal case.

The fact that the defense council played the race card doesn't prove that the race card was the reason the jury found Simpson not guilty. It is disrespectful, to say the least, to suggest that the jury acquitted on the basis of race. Black juries convict black criminal’s everyday all over the US. Further you can provide no proof whatsoever that a “white” jury would have convicted him given the evidence that was presented in the criminal case. I personally find it hard to believe a white jury would convict given the inept job the prosecution did. I think it is especially unlikely that a small L liberal California jury would convict in a criminal trial on the basis tainted DNA, but that is my opinion not a fact.

If you want to take an unbiased look at the case there are some very good interviews about it here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/jury.html

Phil, I've worked for the DA's Office in LA, and you can bet your ass a jury in most parts of the county would indeed have voted to convict. But I agree that the prosecution lost that case far more than the defense won it. Read Vincent Bugliosi's Outrage: he's far more angry at the prosecutors than at defense attorneys who only did what they're ethically required to do, i.e., to be zealous advocates for their client.

Dave

I would agree that they would have a better chance at getting a conviction with a jury in a "red" state, but I find it hard to believe that a jury from the ritzy left wing part of LA would.

Anyway this tread is throughly highjacked and it is my fault though not my intention. The Simpson jury thing is one of my pet peeves. I offer my appologies and this thought. A jury of ones peers is clearly ment to be a randomly selected group of citizens living in the same geographical area as the court where the trial is held. It certainly doesn't mean a group selected on the basis of race or chosen from an identifiable group that the accused is a member of. Presumably if this went through then a member of the Hell Angels could ask for a trial in front of members of a motorcycle club or well you get the idea. A reasonable exception would be where language is an issue. If a native spoke no english and it was possible to hold the court proceedings in his/her mother tougue then the request would be somewhat reasonable.

I don't know I have a feeling this is going to end up at a "sentencing circle" so it hardly matters if he is found guilty or innocent.

"...I find it hard to believe that a jury from the ritzy left wing part of LA would."

Perhaps not, Phil, but I didn't say most parts of the COUNTRY, I said most parts of LOS ANGELES COUNTY. LA County is the most populous county in the US, with a population greater than all but 8 states, and geographically larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. It is ten times larger than its county seat, the City of Los Angeles (which is nonetheless enormous in its own right). A lot of people seem to think LA County consists of only 1) phenomenally wealthy (and mostly white Anglo) people in the Westside and 2) phenomenally poor (mostly black and Hispanic) people in South Central. Reality couldn't be further from that perception. Remember that LA County has within it 88 incorporated municipalities, and yet the majority of its land area is STILL unincorporated.

What if a jury of his "peers" actually found him guilty? Morons..we are as random as you, in education, experiences, political stripes, economics and personal opinions. How dare you lump us together as a faceless generic mass of stereotypes.

So according to Kate if all natives are criminals and lack morals than are all whites child molesters preoccupied with child porn? Boy stereotyping is fun no wonder crackers like to do it.

I notice you screen your responses now, is this quality control to ensure better one sided propaganda or are you just chickensh**t to hear some of the truths made in defence of some of your fact manipulation used in order to whip the rest of the crackers in the pack into a frenzy.

"Truth":

The word "porn" sent your comment to the spam filter.

Now, if this is how you interpreted what I wrote, my advice to you is to look up whoever was responsible for your education and have a word with _them_. It is not possible to discuss a post with a person whose reading comprehension skills are so sorely lacking.

"Kate": Ditto for a person whose social comprehension skills are non-existent, that would indicate that you need to have a word with your parents and your peers, on second thought that is probably where it all stems from. Maybe try and extend your discussions to include that of other races and subjects instead of the usual ones that are discussed in the backwoods around the cross burnings. You know the ones that stem from your inability to see the point of view of others especially those who are more than an off white. No wonder you choose the life of a spinster.

When I criticized your reading comprehension, I was being serious.

You truly have a problem, but I doubt it's going to be resolved by trolling my comments section spewing personal and racial insults, so I suggest you take your leave.

(Sorry - "take your leave" means "go away".)

Classic scenario person is confronted with a taste of their own medicine and they become upset, citing this I believe it is you that have a problem and that being as long as you are allowed to spew personal and racial insults it is fine and dandy. Once somebody calls you on it and employs your tactics it is suddenly unacceptable and the classic statement is made "go away and stop trolling my comments" yet you do the exact same thing by trolling the news and the statements made, except you add your propaganda filled narrow minded points of view. That is mainly what your blog is all about. If you can't take criticism coming the other way then perhaps your blog serves only a single purpose and that being to spit garbage and expect to be stroked by like minded individuals afterwords. You may call it trolling but to others it is mainly to let people like you know that your narrow mindedness does not go unchecked and there are those who will call you on it. Sorry - "call you on it" means "you are full of S**t". To that I bid you adieu. As I see from your reaction my work is done here.