Recent Posts451
Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested
« Last post by 40hz on February 05, 2015, 08:10 AM »^Ren - you have a very single-minded all encompassing political lens (partially correcting some wilful blindness) that you tend to see the entire world through. I commend you for it. 
re: peremptory challenge (i.e. disqualifying jurors)
For the record, that's not how it works in the states. Prosecutors aren't allowed unlimited challenges. The details vary by jurisdiction as most procedural legal things do in the USA. And the number of juror candidate disqualifications allowed usually depends on the seriousness of the charge(s) tried. The more serious the charge, the more that are allowed. But in all cases the defense is allowed more of these than the prosecution. The most common number is 10 allowed for the defense and 6 for the prosecution.
That covers "peremptory" juror disqualifications - which is a fancy way of saying "I just don't want this person sitting on the jury." NO reason needs to be (or is) given for having a candidate disqualified with a peremptory challenge.
Any person being considered for a jury can, however, be disqualified for cause. And by either side. But those challenges are granted solely at the discretion of the trial judge hearing the case as normal part of the voir dire process. So while an unlimited number of potential jurors may be theoretically be disqualified, in practice the judge usually only allows so many. And there are fairly strict rules for what is considered an acceptable cause for disqualification - with the burden of establishing such cause resting solely on the shoulders of the attorney asking for it. The exception is in cases where a cause is so glaringly obvious (e.g where someone who is legally blind is being considered for a jury that will be asked to look at a great deal of photographic, video, and/or physical evidence during the trial) that a judge may disqualify the juror directly from the bench.
The usual way it works is 28 jurors (who could not be disqualified for cause) get selected. Then, the defense team gets to eliminate it's ten - and the prosecution gets to remove it's six. That leaves a classic 12-man jury - and trial proceeds. In cases where it is anticipated that the trial will run for a longer than average time, it's also not unusual to appoint one or two additional jurors as alternates - just in case somebody on the jury flips out or becomes medically incapacitated. Which happens from time to time, and could result in a mistrial if no alternate is available to take their place.
So that's why there are peremptory challenges. That's the trial attorney's ace in the hole for preventing the other side from too easily stacking the jury.
If you want a better understanding of how the entire process actually works, see: Jury Selection Procedures in United States District Courts. It's less than 70 pages. It's a very interesting read IMO. And a surprisingly easy one too.
re: what sort of evidence and testimony gets admitted during a trial:
In federal cases, what is admissible evidence is governed by either specific statute or The Federal Rules of Evidence which first went into effect in 1975. Those rules (which also cover the qualification and `admission of expert testimony and witnesses) were established to provide more uniform treatment in federal court cases.
So it's not really all that easy for Judge Kangaroo to do whatever he likes in a federal trial. (There's also the appeal process. That's something even the most arbitrary judges need to be concerned about if they played fast and loose with established procedure.)
re: the 800lb gorilla
First up - cute comeback. I laughed.
Next: I don't see anybody who argued that illegal drug trafficking wasn't being conducted through Silk Road. It was pretty obvious it was.
But Ulricht's legal argument was (a) that he was not involved in any way shape or form; and (b) that even if he somehow was involved, some odd sort of "safe harbor" rule applied because he was merely the site's owner. ("Look...I didn't do it. But if I did do it...it was an accident!") Unfortunately, "safe harbor" doesn't fly too well when a serious criminal act has been committed. But "aiding and abetting" provisions in the law certainly do. You can become an "accessory" to a crime either by your acts or your omissions. And you can be convicted of being an accessory to a criminal act even if the named principle is acquitted. Because it usually isn't a question of whether or not a crime was committed. In most cases, it's fairly obvious one was. Once it goes to trial it's a mostly a matter of who will be held accountable. And in what capacity.
re: peremptory challenge (i.e. disqualifying jurors)
For the record, that's not how it works in the states. Prosecutors aren't allowed unlimited challenges. The details vary by jurisdiction as most procedural legal things do in the USA. And the number of juror candidate disqualifications allowed usually depends on the seriousness of the charge(s) tried. The more serious the charge, the more that are allowed. But in all cases the defense is allowed more of these than the prosecution. The most common number is 10 allowed for the defense and 6 for the prosecution.
That covers "peremptory" juror disqualifications - which is a fancy way of saying "I just don't want this person sitting on the jury." NO reason needs to be (or is) given for having a candidate disqualified with a peremptory challenge.
Any person being considered for a jury can, however, be disqualified for cause. And by either side. But those challenges are granted solely at the discretion of the trial judge hearing the case as normal part of the voir dire process. So while an unlimited number of potential jurors may be theoretically be disqualified, in practice the judge usually only allows so many. And there are fairly strict rules for what is considered an acceptable cause for disqualification - with the burden of establishing such cause resting solely on the shoulders of the attorney asking for it. The exception is in cases where a cause is so glaringly obvious (e.g where someone who is legally blind is being considered for a jury that will be asked to look at a great deal of photographic, video, and/or physical evidence during the trial) that a judge may disqualify the juror directly from the bench.
The usual way it works is 28 jurors (who could not be disqualified for cause) get selected. Then, the defense team gets to eliminate it's ten - and the prosecution gets to remove it's six. That leaves a classic 12-man jury - and trial proceeds. In cases where it is anticipated that the trial will run for a longer than average time, it's also not unusual to appoint one or two additional jurors as alternates - just in case somebody on the jury flips out or becomes medically incapacitated. Which happens from time to time, and could result in a mistrial if no alternate is available to take their place.
So that's why there are peremptory challenges. That's the trial attorney's ace in the hole for preventing the other side from too easily stacking the jury.
If you want a better understanding of how the entire process actually works, see: Jury Selection Procedures in United States District Courts. It's less than 70 pages. It's a very interesting read IMO. And a surprisingly easy one too.
re: what sort of evidence and testimony gets admitted during a trial:
In federal cases, what is admissible evidence is governed by either specific statute or The Federal Rules of Evidence which first went into effect in 1975. Those rules (which also cover the qualification and `admission of expert testimony and witnesses) were established to provide more uniform treatment in federal court cases.
So it's not really all that easy for Judge Kangaroo to do whatever he likes in a federal trial. (There's also the appeal process. That's something even the most arbitrary judges need to be concerned about if they played fast and loose with established procedure.)
re: the 800lb gorilla
First up - cute comeback. I laughed.
Next: I don't see anybody who argued that illegal drug trafficking wasn't being conducted through Silk Road. It was pretty obvious it was.
But Ulricht's legal argument was (a) that he was not involved in any way shape or form; and (b) that even if he somehow was involved, some odd sort of "safe harbor" rule applied because he was merely the site's owner. ("Look...I didn't do it. But if I did do it...it was an accident!") Unfortunately, "safe harbor" doesn't fly too well when a serious criminal act has been committed. But "aiding and abetting" provisions in the law certainly do. You can become an "accessory" to a crime either by your acts or your omissions. And you can be convicted of being an accessory to a criminal act even if the named principle is acquitted. Because it usually isn't a question of whether or not a crime was committed. In most cases, it's fairly obvious one was. Once it goes to trial it's a mostly a matter of who will be held accountable. And in what capacity.
