As a Juror, would you vote to convict someone that killed a wolf?

[Glockster26]

Yes little to no work was done, CRWM is a lot more organized now and will put up some kind of fight against the lion/bobcat ban

Doesn’t matter now, to little to late. Becoming active on the lion/bobcat ban is trying to fix a pinhole leak after someone punched a hole in the boat big enough to drive a f150 through.
Wolves will never be delisted in Colorado. Same for grizzly’s in Wyoming, the ESA has been weaponized. Unfortunately we are too busy infighting over the scraps or to lazy and stupid to go vote when it matters.
I would be willing to bet the lion/bobcat ban passes.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Doesn’t matter now, to little to late. Becoming active on the lion/bobcat ban is trying to fix a pinhole leak after someone punched a hole in the boat big enough to drive a f150 through.
Wolves will never be delisted in Colorado. Same for grizzly’s in Wyoming, the ESA has been weaponized. Unfortunately we are too busy infighting over the scraps or to lazy and stupid to go vote when it matters.
I would be will to bet the lion/bobcat passes.

I hope you are wrong, and I’ll send my resources to fight it. We will have to see I guess

 

[Okhotnik]

Apparently.

And I realize it was actually the complete opposite. Where white southerners were murdering black people and getting off because the all white jury wouldn't convict.

But it still applies. If the law is wrong, you have a duty to not convict as a juror. In the southern thing, if you really think murdering other races should be legal then we have a much larger societal issue.

perhaps the biggest example of this malfeasance of our judicial process just happened in New York.The crazy unhinged left resurrected a law that changed the statue of limitations on sexual assault to solely prosecute a formal potus by a crazy lady , who named her cat vagina and stated she liked to be raped , to find the poiticall victim civilly liable forra 20 plus year old rape unverified accusation ( zero evidence) after just being found not guilty in a criminal case.


point being our judicial system, with the right amount of Money and political pressure, can be manipulated to do anything no matter how unconstitutional and crazy it is

congress can legally trade using secret non public sourced congressional insider information on stocks to make millions while the unconnected American citizen, who engaged in insider trading, would face years in prison . or the non violent Jan 6 protestor vs the tens of thousands BLM arsonist, bomber, looter, murderer, rapist cop murderer who was never charged

This is the clown world two tiered justice system we live in

 

[QuackAttack]

We live in a post constitutional world with no laws or rules beyond what the political class chooses to enforce at any given time.

Play be their rules as those are the only rules.

 

[Hnthrdr]

We live in a post constitutional world with no laws or rules beyond what the political class chooses to enforce at any given time.

Play be their rules as those are the only rules.

You know this is the case when the DA in Denver asks about the race of the perpetrators/victims anytime there is a major incident before they hear anything else and often that decides if charges are brought or not

 

[Deadfall]

I'm no wolf fan... dumb is dumb. Caught is caught. Everyone breaks the law somewhere. Ignorance is no excuse. On same token, sometimes things happen. Being human and all.

My answer, would be....Depends...

 

[MNGrouser]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Well said.

 

[Hnthrdr]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

While that is well put, as it should be you have your JD. How does a citizenry go about challenging corrupt Judges and DA’s who have qualified immunity?! This is a serious question. I live in the metro area in Co, the city I work for has Judges who will just decide they do not want to enforce a law that is on the books and nothing happens to them? Where is the justice in that?

 

[Flyjunky]

While that is well put, as it should be you have your JD. How does a citizenry go about challenging corrupt Judges and DA’s who have qualified immunity?! This is a serious question. I live in the metro area in Co, the city I work for has Judges who will just decide they do not want to enforce a law that is on the books and nothing happens to them? Where is the justice in that?

Wouldn’t this country be so much different right now if everyone in our judicial system actually followed the law?

 

[Hnthrdr]

Wouldn’t this country be so much different right now if everyone in our judicial system actually followed the law?

My brother is a police officer in a suburb of Denver, last month alone. 3 serious crimes were committed 2 involved murder and 1 involved neglect/ negligent homicide of a child, the DA brought no charges in any of the cases. But yes let’s keep believing that the law is blind and that justice is being done.

 

[Flyjunky]

But yes let’s keep believing that the law is blind and that justice is being done.

Less than 50% of this country thinks the above is true.

 

[mtwarden]

Wouldn’t this country be so much different right now if everyone in our judicial system actually followed the law?

Fixed

 

[yfarm]

States attorney in Peoria County Illinois was a judge who resigned and ran for the states attorney position(district attorney). Refuses to prosecute minority juveniles for violent crimes including murder as she believes it is society’s fault these children commit crime. Only recourse is voting. Consider the anger the victims and their families feel about this prosecutorial discretion. This same legal maneuver runs rampant on our southern border as espoused by Alejandro Mayorkas and many of the George Soros supported progressive district attorneys around the country.

 

[stanginthe11s]

MNGrouser, while you are correct for the most part you unfortunately have a prosecutor mentality in that everything is by the book as you read it, black and white. not saying there's anything wrong with that but it's not always the best way.
now, the sole purpose of a trial by jury is the jurors are supposed to look beyond the facts and determine if a person's truly guilty beyond any doubt. in that, it is not illegal for a jury to hand out a not guilty verdict if they believe there in an injustice. I would say if a person truly made a mistake, it would be a great injustice to find them guilty. now if a person said F that wolf and shot it, well he's guilty all day.
there are many ways to interpret many laws, there are extenuating circumstances, there are also genuine mistakes. to think in black and white is just foolish, and if that's what people believe the judicial system is about then we wouldn't need juries, lawyers or even judges.

 

[Squincher]

MNGrouser, while you are correct for the most part you unfortunately have a prosecutor mentality in that everything is by the book as you read it, black and white. not saying there's anything wrong with that but it's not always the best way.
now, the sole purpose of a trial by jury is the jurors are supposed to look beyond the facts and determine if a person's truly guilty beyond any doubt. in that, it is not illegal for a jury to hand out a not guilty verdict if they believe there in an injustice. I would say if a person truly made a mistake, it would be a great injustice to find them guilty. now if a person said F that wolf and shot it, well he's guilty all day.
there are many ways to interpret many laws, there are extenuating circumstances, there are also genuine mistakes. to think in black and white is just foolish, and if that's what people believe the judicial system is about then we wouldn't need juries, lawyers or even judges.

When jurors look beyond the facts (those facts the judge lets them hear, by the way) the system doesn't work as those running the system want it to work. I mean, come on, if juries considered justice beyond the facts the court let them hear, people might not serve time under unjust laws, unjust prosecution, or in this case a horrible law voted in by people who have no clue.

The fact MNGrouser, a prosecuting attorney, suggested above even the possibility a juror could go to jail for voting not guilty, under any circumstance of conscience, should tell you exactly what our justice system has become. He's telling us to shut up and jail those they want to jail, regardless of what we think of it. Is our jury system but a veneer of plausible deniability disguising a gulag system? Of the people, by the people, for the people......anyone remember that?

 

[MNGrouser]

When jurors look beyond the facts (those facts the judge lets them hear, by the way) the system doesn't work as those running the system want it to work. I mean, come on, if juries considered justice beyond the facts the court let them hear, people might not serve time under unjust laws, unjust prosecution, or in this case a horrible law voted in by people who have no clue.

The fact MNGrouser, a prosecuting attorney, suggested above even the possibility a juror could go to jail for voting not guilty, under any circumstance of conscience, should tell you exactly what our justice system has become. He's telling us to shut up and jail those they want to jail, regardless of what we think of it. Is our jury system but a veneer of plausible deniability disguising a gulag system? Of the people, by the people, for the people......anyone remember that?

I want to be very clear. In no way shape or form did I mean to suggest that a juror could be jailed for finding an individual not guilty. I suggested it could be a possibility if someone lied under oath, promised to follow the Judge's orders, and did not that they could be found in contempt. It is perfectly acceptable to tell the trial court, "This isn't a good case for me. I have very strong feelings about wolf reintroduction and/or management." We see it all the time with victims of sexual abuse not wanting to serve on criminal sexual conduct trials or those who have been impacted by drunk drivers asking not to serve on DUI trials.

I'd also point out the evidence that is most often excluded cuts in the favor of the Defendants. Which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights do any of you feel are in place to aid the prosecution? A disguised "gulag system"? Please! Which foreign criminal justice system would you prefer we replace ours with?

 

[Squincher]

I want to be very clear. In no way shape or form did I mean to suggest that a juror could be jailed for finding an individual not guilty. I suggested it could be a possibility if someone lied under oath, promised to follow the Judge's orders, and did not that they could be found in contempt. It is perfectly acceptable to tell the trial court, "This isn't a good case for me. I have very strong feelings about wolf reintroduction and/or management." We see it all the time with victims of sexual abuse not wanting to serve on criminal sexual conduct trials or those who have been impacted by drunk drivers asking not to serve on DUI trials.

I'd also point out the evidence that is most often excluded cuts in the favor of the Defendants. Which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights do any of you feel are in place to aid the prosecution? A disguised "gulag system"? Please! Which foreign criminal justice system would you prefer we replace ours with?

You suggested someone could be jailed for why they found someone not guilty. And since when does a juror have to explain their vote? You seem to be of the opinion jurors (the public) in some way answer to the justice system. No, you and the judge work for us. Occasionally when someone feels they have been wrongly charged, we get to check on your work. You don't get to limit my latitude for any reason. "I" am supposed to be the "system," not you.

If you want me to decide someone's fate, you have to tell me the whole story instead of picking and choosing what you think I need to know. I've had a front row seat to criminal prosecutions for 33 years and I've seen judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys do some despicable things. I don't want to replace our system; I just want it to be what we say it is. In a lot of cases, it isn't. I'll point to a recent case in your state involving a corrupt judge and prosecution and a compliant jury. That railroad job was worthy of any number of third world justice systems. Too bad a juror didn't stand up then, for any reason, because they were last hope for justice in that case.

 

[gabenzeke]

This one hits pretty close to home. I am a prosecuting attorney. I am no fan of wolves but I’ve been through dozens of jury trials…just never as a defendant. For those of you saying that jury nullification is a thing, respectfully, you are incorrect. Jurors are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

There are a couple of steps to the jury selection process that I want to highlight. Step 1) You are placed under oath. You have raised your hand and promised to answer all the questions honestly. Step 2) While you are still under oath you are asked if you will be able to follow the judge’s instructions. Step 3) One of those instructions includes (more or less) “You must apply the law as I give it to you even if you believe the law is, or should be, different.” For both sides to have a fair day in court, they need jurors who will follow the law, not take it into their own hands.

For those advocating “civil disobedience” I suggest you look into what exactly civil disobedience entails. If you think a law is unjust you break it openly and suffer the consequences in an effort to get the unjust law overturned. Thoreau wrote “civil disobedience” from jail for refusing to pay a tax he thought was unfair. One of MLK’s most famous writings is “A Letter From the Birmingham County Jail” Because HE WROTE IT FROM JAIL! Rosa Parks was jailed because she wouldn’t give up her seat as the law, at the time, required. Are you really suggesting that you would willingly serve a jail sentence for contempt (not following the Judge’s orders) because you disagree with wolf (mis)management policy?

To answer the original question, without inserting hypothetical defenses or excess information, I would convict. If the judge explained the law and the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant broke the law, I would convict. I would NOT like it; I live in Northern Minnesota where we are over-run with wolves. But I would remember that I raised my right hand and swore to follow the law, then I would do just that. Our system does not work otherwise.

There was a case somewhere, I believe Utah? Where someone served time for discussing jury nullification as a juror with her other jurors. Can't remember, but there is a podcast about it done by radiolab. Jury nullification is a thing, it's just that it could come with its own penalties for any jurors that discuss it. And according to various articles on the web it seems jury nullification isn't as cut and dried as one may think. There is a historical basis for it, but there is also precedent for people being punished for tampering with a jury for passing out pamphlets on jury nullification. Either way, a person could refuse to convict no matter what the evidence says and as long as you don't say the words jury nullification I don't know what anyone could do about it. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[gabenzeke]

When jurors look beyond the facts (those facts the judge lets them hear, by the way) the system doesn't work as those running the system want it to work. I mean, come on, if juries considered justice beyond the facts the court let them hear, people might not serve time under unjust laws, unjust prosecution, or in this case a horrible law voted in by people who have no clue.

The fact MNGrouser, a prosecuting attorney, suggested above even the possibility a juror could go to jail for voting not guilty, under any circumstance of conscience, should tell you exactly what our justice system has become. He's telling us to shut up and jail those they want to jail, regardless of what we think of it. Is our jury system but a veneer of plausible deniability disguising a gulag system? Of the people, by the people, for the people......anyone remember that?

I was just thinking how wild it is that a prosecutor would comment on this thread in writing. The Internet is forever.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk