In our justice system, isn't a defendant presumed, to be Innocent, by the jury, until a Unamious verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reached ?
|
In our justice system, isn't a defendant presumed, to be Innocent, by the jury, until a Unamious verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reached ?
Well, I know it had always been guilty until proven innocent but now I believe it has changed around. I think it is innocent until proven guilty but don't expect police to follow that
Hello n:
Sure. But, if that didn't happen, tell us about it.
excon
Yes, US law gives a person a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Not all trials are done before a jury however.
Is there a reason you are aksing?
Are you in the US? Because in the US it has always been innocent until prove guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam_89
Ya know, you seem like a genius. I will give you that much, but why do you have to be such a smart a** all the time? You could have said sorry adam, you are wrong, it has always been like that. Instead of trying to make me out to be an idiot. I was just wondering why, I'm not trying to start an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Hello adam:
Come on, Dude. I'M the smarta$$ here. I didn't see ANYTHING in Scotts answer that put you down.
excon
Hello. You don't see anything wrong with it? It could have been a little more nicely put like I said. That's all I was saying. I may have took it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I thought that if all men are created Equal, that then only an Equal can judge me, in a Self government that We the People have agreed to give our collective authority for ? What would be the grounds for a trial other than by jury ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
You can ask for a non-jury trial in some cases.
I think this is a topic for one of the political debate boards - this is not a criminal law question.
I'm not ARGUING, which comprises a debate, I'm asking a question, not making ba statement, in response to what was stated ! As per your answer, Exactly what cases would you permit me a non jury trial, if I wanted one ? Oh, and doesn't the human plaintif have a say as to a trial without a jury ? If the plaintif has to prove the charges they made against Innocent me, are Facts beyond a reasonable doubt, to reach a Unamious verdict, don't thy also have a say as to approving a trial without a jury ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
Your question was: "In our justice system, isn't a defendant presumed, to be Innocent, by the jury, until a Unamious verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reached ?"
It was answered.
As far as this question is concerned a Waiver of Trial by Jury (or something similar according to State) is filed. Why? That depends on the charge and the Attorney. I've seen it for heinous crimes; crimes when mental competency is questioned and there is a concern that a jury will not understand the mental "defect;" crimes where there are issues of law which might be beyond the education or understanding of a jury.
(You do notice this thread was moved to a discussion board because there is no specific legal question.)
Where and how do I get to the discussion board ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
You're on it now. How did you get here?
Apparently someone moved the thread to a discussion board.
The point is that the defendant in a case has the right to request a non jury trial. ONLY the defendant can make that choice.
In a criminal trial the plaintiff is the state not an indidividual. And the presumption of innocence applies only to criminal trials.
In a civil trial non-jury trials are more commonplace because the parties may feel they want to be judged on the law, not the emotions that a jury tends to bring.
In criminal trials, jury trials are much more common, but again the defendant has the choice.
An aside to adam. One of the drawbacks of communication like this is it lacks the visuall and auditory cues that make up 70% of communications. I was not trying to put you down. If I was, I could have have been much more sarcastic, because the presumption of innocence is one of the basic foundations of the US judicial system and has been since before the founding fathers drafted the Constitution.
My original question is a lawful/legal question, which sets up the way a trial is handled. In the UCMJ a Human is Guilty and they have to prove they are innocent of Charges, why? Because they don't have Sovereign Status when they are in the Military can be the only answer, likewise they don't get a jury of their peers which can ONLY be in Self government for whom the authority for government is from!! Somebody said, in reply, that a jury trial is NOT always given, and I asked how can that be ? Then they concluded that I haven't asked a legal question?? And this should become a political dsicussion!! Are We the People the Sovereigns or are the civil servant/government workers the Sovereigns? I always thought that the constitution gets its authority from the Sovereign People and they in turn delegated it, in written form, called the Constitution and that it is the Supreme law of the land, yes or no ? If a Unamious verdict o guilt must be reached in a trial, then where does a Hung jury come in, to be tried again ? If a defendant is NOT found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty, then their presumption is proven as to Innocense, NO ?Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
Arguing isn't going to change anything. Your original legal question was answered. You then went on to argue3 whatever it is you're arguing and also provided no additional information.
Why don't you post the exact circumstances and jurisdiction and then someone can determine whether you are asking a specific legal question or wish to argue whether "we" are or are not "the people the sovereigns" or not. Why don't you tell us what your concerns are and see if anyone can answer them.
Read your question - once again, it's an argument, not a statement of fact.
You evidently are a lawyer/attorney, which aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, so what could you know about Common Law ? You guys have a great time twisting the law to make it seem like somebody needs you to talk for them!! With a hung jury, something you guys can't explain, that if you are presummed Innocent and it can not be proven otherwise, then there is reason for another trial!! Go look at the original question !Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
The original question was: "In our justice system, isn't a defendant presumed, to be Innocent, by the jury, until a Unamious verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is reached ?"
The answer is, yes.
I have no idea what Attorneys being mentioned/not mentioned as a profession in the Constitution has to do with anything.
Asked and answered.
Are you going to post whatever your specific situation is so some other people can give some advice?
::sniff, sniff:: I smell a troll. :(
Go look at your answer telling me that trials are not all done by jury, didn't you say that ? Sounds like lawyer double talk to me!! Now when I mention that lawyers are NOT even mentioned in the Constitution, which should tell us something about the jurisdictions mentioned, that a Human plaintiff, whose Rights have been violated or infringed on brings charges, can now be done by the State, this is the same crap as the Star chambers under the Crown. So explain what a Hung jury is, seems I can NOT find that in the Constitution either!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Where is this coming from? Why are you asking these questions? Sounds like you think something went wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
As for a hung jury, that simply means the jury couldn't reach a verdict one way or the other. This allows the prosecutor to decide whether to refile charges. This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Until a court finds the defendant guilty he is presumed innocent. If the court acquits the defendant then he cannot be tried again.
Are you saying that if you get charged with raping a girl and if a jury does not find you guilty, you are still considered to be a rapist ? So if one juror is not convinced you are guilty then there is a hung jury?? I thought it had to be a Unamious verdict ? This is NOT logical, some one can accuse you and for the rest of your life you are presummed innocent but they can retry yiou at any time??
Nostradamus. A hung jury means that it wasn't a unanimous verdict. At this time the prosecutor can refile the charges and they can once again have a trial to present the charges to a jury.
You are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. So, if it's a hung jury you are still presumed innocent until you are convicted of the crime you've been charged with.
If the jury unanimously decides that you aren't guilty, then you aren't guilty under the law.
If the jury decides you are guilty then you have been convicted of that crime and are in fact guilty under the law.
Do you understand now?
I would still like to know why you want to argue about this, you obviously are very angry about something that none of us can change. The law is the law, you don't have to like it, but you do have to abide by it and live with it.
No sense fighting about something you can't change.
In the eyes of the law, no. Not sure where you got that from what I said. It has to be an unanimous verdict IN EITHER DIRECTION! It has to be unanimously guilty or unanimously innocent. Anything else is an incomplete trial that can be retried by the prosecutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by nostradamus
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM. |