• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illegal Immigrant's lawyer wants to blame the gun for Steinle's murder...

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
257
Location
Planet Earth
James, it is ALWAYS the fault of an inanimate object. These morons can't accept that there are evil people in the world.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
My knife doesn't have a warning saying which is the pointy end, can I sue the manufacturer?

The door locks on my car don't say which direction to move them to make them lock the doors, can I sue?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The attorney needs to present some type of defense for his client no matter how frivolous.

We should be more concerned that a non citizen of our country is entitled to the very same legal rights as natural born citizens.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The attorney needs to present some type of defense for his client no matter how frivolous.

We should be more concerned that a non citizen of our country is entitled to the very same legal rights as natural born citizens.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
Years ago, this flag-waving, jingoistic US Marine would have agreed.

Today? Well...

Due process is due process--the fairness of procedure deserved. And, rights are rights are rights are rights.

If we say, "Oh, that guy doesn't deserve that right...", we play right into the hands of those who would rather ignore all rights and do whatever they feel like. We give them their wedge.

Also, Jefferson and Franklin did not say, "...all Englishmen are created equal...endowed by their Creator..." They said, "...all men are created equal...unalienable rights..."

I would argue, be very, very careful and very, very thoughtful about denying any rights to any person.
 
Last edited:

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
291
Location
Planet Earth
Great post Citizen. It made me stop and think about that "all men" part.
When illegals are being subjected to our legal system, I believe you are correct. Where I believe that we should draw the line however, is that they should not be allowed to draw "benefits", benefits that are sorely needed by actual citizens who are not getting the help they need.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Great post Citizen. It made me stop and think about that "all men" part.
When illegals are being subjected to our legal system, I believe you are correct. Where I believe that we should draw the line however, is that they should not be allowed to draw "benefits", benefits that are sorely needed by actual citizens who are not getting the help they need.
The defendant is in fact getting free benefits at the expense of the tax payer.. Defendant is getting free counsel paid for with tax payer money..

CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Years ago, this flag-waving, jingoistic US Marine would have agreed.

Today? Well...

Due process is due process--the fairness of procedure deserved. And, rights are rights are rights are rights.

If we say, "Oh, that guy doesn't deserve that right...", we play right into the hands of those who would rather ignore all rights and do whatever they feel like. We give them their wedge.

Also, Jefferson and Franklin did not say, "...all Englishmen are created equal...endowed by their Creator..." They said, "...all men are created equal...unalienable rights..."

I would argue, be very, very careful and very, very thoughtful about denying any rights to any person.
Citizen
I am not saying that the defendant should be denied due process or a fair trial. Due process would still be served if he were tried before a panel of three judges as opposed to a jury trial.

It is impossible to find a jury of the defendants peers, unless 12 illegals happen to be on the jury ( not likely) Hence creating the possibility for an appeal.

I doubt our defendant would have been considered a part of WE, the people in 18th century America..

Always good hearing from you Citizen.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The defendant is in fact getting free benefits at the expense of the tax payer.. Defendant is getting free counsel paid for with tax payer money..

CCJ
Oh, man. What are the odds? What are the odds that something I just read about this morning would come up this evening?

Right to counsel.

(Brace yourselves--this one is a long one. Well, more than two sentences anyway.)

Do you know that for a very long time in England, the criminal defendant was not only not provided counsel, he was denied counsel. Oh, yeah. Even if you could afford to hire counsel, the judges refused to let him help you at trial.

As late as 1649, John Lilburne--the guy who placed the capstone on the right to silence--was denied counsel at his trial for high treason.

The lie then, and for a long time before and after, was that the judge would help the defendant with matters of law. Yeah. Suuuuuure. Even commentators of that era observed it was BS. Somehow, judges, who assured the defendant he would help with matters of law, seemed to always side with the prosecution on matters of law.

Eventually, misdemeanor cases got the right to counsel. But, not felony or capital crimes.

Along about 1694-96 even the Chief Justice of England pointed out the illogic of allowing counsel for a six-penny offense, while denying it to capital defendants. If I recall, he was the one who asked Parliament for reform.

Then, in an act of 1696 or the very early 1700's, Parliament finally passed a law allowing counsel for all defendants. Mere fairness. How on earth can a fellow ignorant of lawyerly tactics and the law hope to wage an effective defense against experts? And, don't forget--if we say he doesn't deserve it, we are also saying we presume him guilty before trial.

When SCOTUS said in Miranda that an attorney shall be appointed if one cannot be afforded, they were merely carrying one step further a very long fight for fairness. Mark that one on the calendar--government actually insisting on something fair when it didn't have a pitchfork or torch at its throat.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Excellent point, Citizen!

Perhaps one day, the people will be defended with the same vigor that the government uses to prosecute, but I won't hold my breath. I think I read once that in Israel(?) nothing said by the defendant/accused could be used in a court of law; any testimony or evidence had to be produced by the state. I wouldn't mind such a legal theory being in practice here.

Note that I'm probably misstating the principle in at least some way, as I haven't studied it in depth. The gist of it seems to be here.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Oh, man. What are the odds? What are the odds that something I just read about this morning would come up this evening?

Right to counsel.

(Brace yourselves--this one is a long one. Well, more than two sentences anyway.)

Do you know that for a very long time in England, the criminal defendant was not only not provided counsel, he was denied counsel. Oh, yeah. Even if you could afford to hire counsel, the judges refused to let him help you at trial.

As late as 1649, John Lilburne--the guy who placed the capstone on the right to silence--was denied counsel at his trial for high treason.

The lie then, and for a long time before and after, was that the judge would help the defendant with matters of law. Yeah. Suuuuuure. Even commentators of that era observed it was BS. Somehow, judges, who assured the defendant he would help with matters of law, seemed to always side with the prosecution on matters of law.

Eventually, misdemeanor cases got the right to counsel. But, not felony or capital crimes.

Along about 1694-96 even the Chief Justice of England pointed out the illogic of allowing counsel for a six-penny offense, while denying it to capital defendants. If I recall, he was the one who asked Parliament for reform.

Then, in an act of 1696 or the very early 1700's, Parliament finally passed a law allowing counsel for all defendants. Mere fairness. How on earth can a fellow ignorant of lawyerly tactics and the law hope to wage an effective defense against experts? And, don't forget--if we say he doesn't deserve it, we are also saying we presume him guilty before trial.

When SCOTUS said in Miranda that an attorney shall be appointed if one cannot be afforded, they were merely carrying one step further a very long fight for fairness. Mark that one on the calendar--government actually insisting on something fair when it didn't have a pitchfork or torch at its throat.
Citizen
William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the laws of England, referenced what you speak, silence was actually used against the defendant, silence equated to guilt... We have come along way..

Not in until 1963 in Gideon V Wainwright did the Supremes rule that indigent defendants were entitled to counsel. Some 176 years after the Constitution was ratified.
I can only imagine how many innocent indigent folks were sent away for lack of proper counsel.

Regarding a jury of ones peers, said term is not found in the text of the 6th amendment, however a jury of ones peers, means by " fellow citizens"..
See Strauder v West Virginia (1874) Supreme Court...

The non- citizen could NEVER be tried by a jury of his peers, since he is indeed NOT A CITIZEN... Hence the reason I stated he should be tried by a panel of justices..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Re Strauder v. West Virginia wherein the US Supreme Court ruled "Exclusion of individuals from juries solely because of their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Someone doesn't understand what a "jury of one's peers" is.
The concept is that the defendant cannot possibly be tried by a jury of his peers., Hence he cannot get a fair and impartial hearing.

Tell me what does "jury of ones peers" actually mean in 21st century jurisprudence?

As always it is my supreme pleasure opining with you Sir!

Regards
CCJ
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,336
Location
Valhalla
A jury comprised of everyone in the panel/pool/community not smarter than the defendant.
Those still left in town and not claiming a deferment.

I was once selected for a capital murder case even though I was a former DOC Academy instructor and knew the defense attorney personally. Fortunately it was plead down and did not go to trial.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,284
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The attorney needs to present some type of defense for his client no matter how frivolous.

We should be more concerned that a non citizen of our country is entitled to the very same legal rights as natural born citizens.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW
Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns
By E. DE VATTEL -TRANSLATION OF THE EDITION OF 1758
Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizens of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.

A Nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may confer citizenship upon an alien and admit him into the body politic. This act is called naturalization. There are some States in which the sovereign can not grant to an alien all the rights of citizens; for example, that of holding public office; so that he has only authority to grant an imperfect naturalization, his power being limited by the fundamental law. In other States, as in England and Poland, the sovereign can not naturalize aliens without the concurrence of the representative assembly. Finally, there are others, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth in the country naturalizes the children of an alien.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power …..
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Think about it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen
William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the laws of England, referenced what you speak, silence was actually used against the defendant, silence equated to guilt... We have come along way..

Not in until 1963 in Gideon V Wainwright did the Supremes rule that indigent defendants were entitled to counsel. Some 176 years after the Constitution was ratified.
I can only imagine how many innocent indigent folks were sent away for lack of proper counsel.

Regarding a jury of ones peers, said term is not found in the text of the 6th amendment, however a jury of ones peers, means by " fellow citizens"..
See Strauder v West Virginia (1874) Supreme Court...

The non- citizen could NEVER be tried by a jury of his peers, since he is indeed NOT A CITIZEN... Hence the reason I stated he should be tried by a panel of justices..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
This is where knowledge of history comes into play.

The Sixth Amendment dates from 1791. December 15th, if I recall.

But, trial by jury in English history goes back way, way further. And, if the reader will dig into it, he will see how, or perhaps more importantly, why it became a jury of his peers. No, not peers as in fellow citizens. Peers as in, "others who are not members of the government", and "not a member of a higher social caste wanting to keep a member of a lower caste in his place, or personally interested in maintaining a social status-quo." Who is left? Equals. Peers.

Roll the clock back to the late 1100's. Herny II wants to expand his royal power into the countryside. (Now, the implications of that is quite startling--the king's power was not unlimited?) So, Henry decided to send royal judges on circuit--eyres they were called. At that time, trial by battle, and trial by ordeal were the legal custom. Once a month or once a quarter (I forget), the Lord of the Manor held a sort of social business meeting for his serfs. One part of these gatherings was that this was time accusations were laid. Henry's plan was to offer the king's justice. Instead of trial by battle or ordeal, you could transfer jurisdiction of your case to the royal judge. But, you had to ask. It had to be by your consent.

As a side note. I am convinced that your consent to be tried by a government judge was the forerunner of pleading to an indictment. Pleading to an indictment was so massively important to English government in the late 1500's, that defendants were tortured into pleading. Now, watch closely. Government didn't care what you plead, only that you plead. Government didn't torture the defendants to plead guilty. Government didn't care whether you plead guilty or not guilty. They wanted the plea itself. Now, I ask myself, how could a defendant's refusing to plead be so important or so dangerous to government, that government would resort to torture to get a plea? Why not just try him anyway? Oh, something legally very, very important to government was in play there. And, no, I don't know what it was. If anybody does, or can even give an uncertain clue, please chip in.

Back to Henry's royal judges. So, the judges, being all new at this--never tried before--had to sorta improvise. So, they hit on the idea of getting a number of people who knew of the matter to tell the judge. This evolved over time into a large number of people (20-23) making a formal accusation. Think: forerunner to today's grand jury. Then came a sub-group of that bunch rendering a verdict. Plenty of room for trouble there. A fellow who served on that early version of a grand jury, who then served on the early version of a jury wasn't likely to change his mind. If he indicted the defendant, he was likely to convict the defendant. So, it went across history. Refinement added to reform added to rectifying an opportunity for injustice.

Skip ahead to June of 1215. A bunch of seriously annoyed barons have backed King John into a corner in a meadow along the Thames river a bit south of Windsor castle. Magna Carta. "Sign this paper, your majesty, or we're gonna have a new king around here." John signed. Or, at least affixed his seal. Now, Magna Carta was re-issued, and re-confirmed a number of times in the next, oh, hundred and fifty years. I don't know whether the original contained what I am about to mention, or whether a later re-issue. But, one of those contained a guarantee of "...trial by the country..." Some say that means trial by a jury of one's peers. Lysander Spooner, for example, in his essay Trial by Jury draws that conclusion. Other's seem to hold "trial by country" means tried for a violation of the common law, meaning this was a way of saying the king could not just make up laws that violated the common law. According to this view, jurors would also decide whether the alleged offense was within the king's power to make into an offense--was it just?--or was the king's law a violation of English common law/legal custom dating to the exit of the Romans? According to this view, Magna Carta was acting as a brake on the king enforcing his own made up laws.

I don't see why it can't be both. King John was, in fact, one of the four son's of Henry II, the youngest. (One of his older brothers was Richard the Lionheart.) So, by 1215, we've only moved a few decades and, if I recall, two kings--Henry, Richard the Lionheart, and younger brother John. No reason at all that "trial by country" is not a reference to the early, and still evolving jury system we know today.

No, I don't think peers means fellow only citizen. I think peers had an evolving meaning, as complex as the evolution of the jury system. I think we cheat ourselves of the lessons of history if we fail to seek out those lessons. In the end, I think the concept encapsulated in jury of his peers--since we don't have a caste system anymore--is: somebody who isn't government. We can add other criteria--impartiality, minimum IQ, whatever. But, in the end, the crucial criteria is not government.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP
Skip ahead to June of 1215. A bunch of seriously annoyed barons have backed King John into a corner in a meadow along the Thames river a bit south of Windsor castle. Magna Carta. "Sign this paper, your majesty, or we're gonna have a new king around here." John signed. Or, at least affixed his seal. Now, Magna Carta was re-issued, and re-confirmed a number of times in the next, oh, hundred and fifty years. I don't know whether the original contained what I am about to mention, or whether a later re-issue. But, one of those contained a guarantee of "...trial by the country..." Some say that means trial by a jury of one's peers. Lysander Spooner, for example, in his essay Trial by Jury draws that conclusion. Other's seem to hold "trial by country" means tried for a violation of the common law, meaning this was a way of saying the king could not just make up laws that violated the common law. According to this view, jurors would also decide whether the alleged offense was within the king's power to make into an offense--was it just?--or was the king's law a violation of English common law/legal custom dating to the exit of the Romans? According to this view, Magna Carta was acting as a brake on the king enforcing his own made up laws.
Just some fun facts to put various historical points into perspective.

Citizen peers doing the trying could not possibly exist in 1215. It was a feudal society. Serfs. They were not citizens, could not be citizens. Their lord all but owned them. They couldn't move without his permission, couldn't marry without his permission, couldn't...those earliest jurors were not citizens; they were only three steps removed from being slaves.

Separate fact. In the summer of 1381 the serfs were fed up. Peasant's Revolt of 1381. A nice swath of England burned. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Treasurer both lost their heads, and not by the king's executioner, neither. By the serf's. Well, it didn't have a happy ending. The serfs lost. You know how sometimes in history there is a critical moment? A truly critical moment? That torpedo from an antiquated Swordfish biplane that jammed the rudder of the Bismark. That moment when Joshua Chamberlain, low on ammo, defending the entire right flank of the Union Army on Little Round Top gave the order to fix bayonets. That instant at Concord Bridge when somebody, despite nobody wanting the fight, decided to drop the flint on a charged and primed muzzle-loader? Well, the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 had such a moment. At the critical moment, a 14-year old king Richard II rode forward from his forces and spoke to the peasants. He made promises. Most of the peasants started to go home. The few left lost the fight that came minutes later.

What's that got to do with the history of trial by jury, Citizen? Dayum, but you can take the long away around! Yeah, yeah. Ok, Ok. I'm not the one who made human relations complicated, and thus history complex.

Here is what the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 had to do with trial by jury. One of the leaders of the revolt, a former soldier, was tried for treason. No surprise there. But, here is the interesting part. He chose trial by battle. (He lost...and died). But, the fact he chose and died in trial by battle means that trial by battle was still legally available even in 1381, nearly two hundred years after Henry II and the beginnings of trial by jury. Both forms--trial by battle and trial by (forerunner) of a jury--existed alongside one another at least for nearly two hundred years.
 
Last edited:
Top