Alternatives to MFW

On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:43:08 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <elcc24tno1tc6ttkv2n82r85dck7t53et7@4ax.com>,
> Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:16:11 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4825052b$0$31718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> > "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> .....>> I do understand that. But if you ARE guilty and the state has lots
>> >> of
>> >> >> evidence like they did in this case, trying to rely on a technicality
>> >> >> can get you in trouble.
>> >>
>> >> The Fourth Amendment is not a technicality. BTW, I think more people do
>> >> not
>> >> get fair trials because of "technicalities" than those who get off because
>> >> of them.
>> >
>> >It was not an illegal search. The glass jar of pot was in plain sight on
>> >the passenger side floorboard. Plain sight evidence is sufficient to get
>> >you arrested.
>>
>> But was the car _hers_ ?
>
>She said it was at first and she had the keys, turned out later it was
>registered in her mom's name.
>
>>
>> >Once you are under arrest for probably cause, the rest of the search
>> >does not violate the 4th amendment.
>>
>> It's not that broad. The search of the _car_ was fine at that point, but
>> the cop could not have proceeded to, say, search the cars of other members
>> of her party, her home, etc. But nothing written to this point established
>> that
>> she owned or possessed the car, or that the evidence physically connects to
>> _her_ (fingerprints, dog-smellin' prints, 8x10" color glossies, etc.)
>
>According to the law here, she was "in possession and control" of said
>vehicle, and it's contents. That was what was defined in court for us
>anyway.

OK, but that was not stated earlier.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:35:47 +0200, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2008-05-11 Omelet napisa³(a):
>> In article <m5cc245hi3l505f9uqtk8dn9u8vk42iik2@4ax.com>,
>> Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 12:18:58 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <ompomelet-BC2BDE.20201007052008@news.giganews.com>,
>>> > Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >18 y/o girl got caught at 04:00 during a call for an attempted break-in.
>>> >She was not the perp but the cop had asked her for ID at the bar. She
>>> >did not have it on her so when they went to her car to get her purse,
>>> >there was a glass jar full of weed in plain sight on the floorboard of
>>> >the passenger side...
>>> >
>>> >She saw that the cop had seen it so she turned her back to the cop and
>>> >put her hands behind her back. He actually cuffed her in front and put
>>> >her in the back of the police cruiser and left her with her cellphone,
>>> >then turned on the back seat recording system.
>>> >
>>> >Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back of a
>>> >police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>>> >inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>>
>>> Had she been given Miranda before then?
>>
>> No. You are not Mirandized on arrest anymore. Only before physical
>> questioning.
>>
>>>
>>> >Anyway, on searching the car, he found another 2 oz. baggie of pot
>>> >stuffed into the map pocket behind the front passenger seat as well as a
>>> >pot grinder and a box of baggies on the front floor and a glass pot pipe
>>> >(used) and a postage scale in the console in front as well as a money
>>> >clip up front with $410.00.
>>>
>>> How come _I_ never meet the hot 18-year-old chicks pre-equipped with cash and
>>> drugs??
>>
>><snicker> She WAS a good looking kid...
>
>And you sent her to prison for selling some pot? Now she will turn
>lesbian and it's all your fault!

mpegs please

In article <vjgf24p28jltfo4g4a7ujignfjtjlf78lr@4ax.com>,
Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:46:39 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1dcc24l32qsbcouigpo69vj6shsell3rqe@4ax.com>,
> > Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:12 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
> >> > Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> >> > Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back
> >> >> > of a
> >> >> > police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
> >> >> > inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention
> >> >> of
> >> >> the recorder?
> >> >
> >> >You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
> >> >questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
> >> >legality
> >>
> >> But you voted to convict anyway? Sounds like you didn't do your job.
> >
> >The judge allowed it as admissible evidence. This is done ALL the time.
>
> It's the JURY that is supposed to judge the evidence. The judge is a
> prefilter
> of a sort, but the judge doesn't decide what is or is not MATERIAL, just what
> is ADMISSIBLE. The JURY decides what is material.

You wish. ;-)
We are instructed to pass verdict by the evidence presented.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

On Sun, 11 May 2008, Omelet wrote:

> In article <vjgf24p28jltfo4g4a7ujignfjtjlf78lr@4ax.com>,
> Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:46:39 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1dcc24l32qsbcouigpo69vj6shsell3rqe@4ax.com>,
>>> Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:12 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805082357510.10697@urchin.earth.li >,
>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>>> Not everybody knows about that! Be careful what you say in the back
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>> police cruiser. You are being recorded and it's NOT illegal nor
>>>>>>> inadmissible evidence if you are not informed of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reals? She got a Miranda warning, right? Just no specific mention
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the recorder?
>>>>>
>>>>> You no longer get Mirandized on arrest. Not until they start asking you
>>>>> questions. It's an interesting practice and I'm dubious about it's
>>>>> legality
>>>>
>>>> But you voted to convict anyway? Sounds like you didn't do your job.
>>>
>>> The judge allowed it as admissible evidence. This is done ALL the time.
>>
>> It's the JURY that is supposed to judge the evidence. The judge is a
>> prefilter
>> of a sort, but the judge doesn't decide what is or is not MATERIAL, just what
>> is ADMISSIBLE. The JURY decides what is material.
>
> You wish. ;-)
> We are instructed to pass verdict by the evidence presented.

Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass a
given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called
"correct" -- Huge

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
.....
> Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass a
> given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
> usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.
>

Judges can do it (sometimes called a directed verdict) in a civil case and
for the defendant in a crim case but can't do it in favor of the
prosecution.

In article <482a3455$0$5696$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> ....
> > Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass a
> > given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
> > usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.
> >
>
> Judges can do it (sometimes called a directed verdict) in a civil case and
> for the defendant in a crim case but can't do it in favor of the
> prosecution.

The judge made no recommendations to us. I don't think they are allowed
to. Just follow the evidence and render the most appropriate verdict is
what the writ said in so many words.

He did, however, come to the jury room afterwards and tell us that he'd
have given the same, and that was when he also let us know that she'd
had TWO chances to plea bargain for a class A misdemeanor. He also
filled us in on what was going to happen to her.

All in all, I do believe we did the right thing even tho' it was done
reluctantly on my part (and 3 other jurors).
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein

On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:53:21 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <482a3455$0$5696$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>> ....
>> > Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass a
>> > given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
>> > usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.
>> >
>>
>> Judges can do it (sometimes called a directed verdict) in a civil case and
>> for the defendant in a crim case but can't do it in favor of the
>> prosecution.
>
>The judge made no recommendations to us. I don't think they are allowed
>to.

What ELSE would you consider Jury Instructions to be?

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Zen Cohen wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> ....
>> Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass a
>> given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
>> usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.
>>
>
> Judges can do it (sometimes called a directed verdict) in a civil case
> and for the defendant in a crim case but can't do it in favor of the
> prosecution.

Ah, that sounds very reasonable. I don't know if the same restrictions
exist here.

tom

--
Heinlein has done more to harm SF than has any other writer, I think. --
PKD

In article <q70l24phtt0u3453pj9qhqcjo0l04o6kqa@4ax.com>,
Lucas Buck <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:53:21 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <482a3455$0$5696$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> >> ....
> >> > Dunno about the US, but in the UK, the judge can direct the jury to pass
> >> > a
> >> > given verdict if the case is open-and-shut. They don't have to, but they
> >> > usually do. I don't know if that was the case here.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Judges can do it (sometimes called a directed verdict) in a civil case and
> >> for the defendant in a crim case but can't do it in favor of the
> >> prosecution.
> >
> >The judge made no recommendations to us. I don't think they are allowed
> >to.
>
> What ELSE would you consider Jury Instructions to be?

Lucas, have you ever served on a jury?

What I meant was is that he was not allowed to tell us WHICH choice to
choose in the choices we had... We had 4.

One of which was to aquit.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people
until they put their foot down." -- Stephan Rothstein