Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Conflicting news out of NJ | Main | VA open carry in parks OK »

A cert petition to watch

Posted by David Hardy · 29 September 2008 08:49 PM

Question: is a requirement of unanimous vote to convict part of the Sixth Amendment, and is it incorporated against the States? The petition for cert. is up for vote in the first conference of the Supremes, likely to be announced in a few days.

The Sixth Amendment on its face says nothing about the question, but as the petition notes, it's quite clear that that was the practice, and the understanding, at the framing period. The idea of decision by less than a majority was, I suspect, an innovation of overloaded courts. The issue puts a judicial decisionmaker in a bit of a dilemma. The Sixth calls for juries "in all criminal proceedings," but the practice has been to limit them to major criminal cases, based on framing-era practices. I can't easily see how that can be reconciled with allowing less than unanimous findings, based on the same practices.

· General con law

9 Comments | Leave a comment

PAUL REVERE | September 30, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply

1. Obama challenges the 2nd Amendment ... The Right To Bear Arms.

2. Obama challenges the 1st Amendment ... The right of Free Speech.
Obama pressures all media who accepts NRA advertising.

3. Obama wants a Civil National Security Force ... with the same budget as the Pentagon.

So, Obama does not want any opposition, so he stops Freedom of Speech.
Then, to make any opposition defenseless, he wants to take away our right to bear arms.
Next, he wants a Civil National Security force to put down any insurrection.

Sounds like the stepping stones to a leftist dictator taking over this country.

Alan A. | September 30, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply

Re: Paul Revere's comment.
Amen!

BR | September 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply

Yeah, but completely off topic.

Bill | September 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply

Seems to me this is a bad idea. Requiring a unanimous verdict in today's society, with the makeup of a lot of today's juries will allow a lot of guilty scumbags to go free.

Too many people these days won't beleive a defendant is guilty unless a nun saw him do it and testifies, it's caught on video, DNA evidence proves it, and he admits it. They've gone beyond any "reasonable" doubt and have come up with an "any outlandish alternate explanation" standard.

Recent cases here in Richmond, VA bear that out. A guy who was so clearly guilty it was just stupid - he shot and killed the guy across the hall. Jury said not guilty because, after all, all the prosecution had was that the defendant and the victim had argued earlier that day; the victim had kicked the guy out for not paying rent; the defendant had been shot with an unusual type of handgun ammo (I can't remember now what it was - maybe 9 mm Makarov); the defendant had that same ammo in his room; the defendant had been drinking and passed out; and he had powder residue on his hands.

But nodoby saw him do it.

Requiring a unanimous jury makes it too easy to walk.

straightarrow | September 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply

Yeah Bill, but requiring less makes it too easy to convict innocent people.

I am disappointed to hear or read any American thinks that is preferable.

Jim D. | September 30, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply

I dunno Bill, without matching the bullet to the gun and the gun to the owner's hand with the powder residue, I could see why that would be reasonable doubt.

Sure he probably did it, but last I heard the chances of a wrongful conviction were between 8%-15%. Sounds like a little more police work would have turned the acquittal around.

Jim | October 1, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply

Jim D. is exactly right. Too often cases are lost due to poor police work or poor prosecutors. I realize everyone is overworked, but the solution to overworked civil servants is not a reduced standard for convictions.

bud | October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply

OTOH, I was on a jury that convicted 11-1 (10 required, I was the holdout) a woman of a petty drug offense based on nothing more than the forceful, convincing, and polished testimony of an undercover narc, basing his testimony that she was involved on a single observation of a female in the back seat of a dark car where he was in the front seat (for a total of less than 3 minutes) consumating a deal with the driver. Her arrest was more than 6 months later.
This is the case that I often cite where one of the jurors (the stereotypical little old housewife) made the comment that "the police wouldn't have arrested her if she hadn't done something". From my anecdote, the danger is unthinking trust in the police.

ParatrooperJJ | October 4, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply

Bill - Our system is set up to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

Leave a comment