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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Why the innocent may be punished worse than the guilty | Main | Oregon case re: colleges »

Done with trial

Posted by David Hardy · 13 February 2009 07:52 AM

Won't be blogging much today, tho. Understand a jury trial means getting up at 6, and working on it until about 10 PM. Lunches wolfed down in haste (you get an hour and a quarter, but some of that is lost walking from courthouse to office, and the rest spent eating quickly while thinking and making notes). Work right through the weekend. 7-8 hours in the courtroom multitasking, simultaneously taking notes, noting if you should object, noting what questions to ask the witness, rooting thru depositions and past statements of the witness, etc. By the end of it you're staggering and getting rather goofy.

I've been in that mode since Feb. 3, and it'll take a while to decompress while waiting for the jury verdict. Which may be a hung jury, since Federal rules require unaminity. Yup, previous guesses as to the case were correct.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Flighterdoc | February 13, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply

Well, best wishes to your client, you and the American People.....this case is an absolute travesty - the 'plantiffs' are CRIMINALS complaining about being treated like criminals.

And MALDEF is a terrorist organization.

Sammy | February 13, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply

Barnett is a hero.

KCSteve | February 13, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply

I'm glad he had you representing him.

From my far-off, amatuer perspective his case hits all kinds of basic issues regarding protecting your country, your land, your family, and your self, all of which he's on the right side of.

Ryan Gill | February 13, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply

Gotta decompress? Go to the gun range. Worked for me after a particularly stressful day..

AvgJoe | February 13, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply

Sounds far too expensive for me. I would have just taking the rope to save my family from living in streets, LOL!

straightarrow | February 14, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply

been following the trial as best I could. I see the jury retired for the night without reaching a verdict.

That worries me. Because, there should be no question at all that your client is not guilty of a damn thing but upholding the law and protecting his family and property.

Please, I pray there are not 12 people in Arizona stupid enough to see it another way.

However, I do worry,as it should have been in the door, vote, return an acquittal. bada bing, bada boom.

straightarrow | February 14, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply

The foregoing was not intended as a critique on your ability, but rather the ability of the jury. A reading of the relative law should have been enough to acquit. At no point did he violate the law.

Bruce Judson | February 14, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply

There are many auslanders in AZ who come from areas where protecting home and property aren't considered basic rights anymore. Many of these folks brought those beliefs with them. If enough of them got on the jury, Mr. Barnett might have a problem.

Leave a comment