Supreme Court Requested to Review MD Carry Case

[teratos]

I am with Al. When I was in the military I took my new Glock with me on the road to visit relatives in New York state. We were heading to a family hunting/fishing camp where we would shoot skeet as kids. Guns no issue.

It wasn't until I got there that someone told me about NY laws. Drove reL careful out of that state on the way home, for sure.

Williams did nothing wrong. None of us would have convicted him were we on his jury.

I think the court wants to go with "safer" cases, from a social perspective. I cannot help but think some desire to avoid stoking political fires might be at play with some justices. It still does not make me happy, but I tend to worry only about the things I can control. everything else I just gotta accept.

From a purely Constitutional perspective, I agree with you. You would, however, be obligated to convict him if you were a good juror. You need to look at current laws, and determine whether he broke the law. Maryland law dictates that a firearm must be transported separate from the ammunition. Mr. Williams' gun was loaded. You could make a better argument if he were transporting the gun without ammunition. It is not for jurors to disagree with the laws, just to determine if people followed them. Changing the laws does not take place in the jury room. It takes place in the higher courts and legislature. If Mr. Williams were only transporting an unloaded firearm, it would be a much better case. This is not a very "safe" case. I do agree that everyone should be able to carry a handgun, and I feel that it should be able to be done WITHOUT the need for a permit. Current jurisprudence does not, however, support this (yet).

The Woullard case is better because Mr. Woullard was denied his Constitutional right by the State in an arbitrary manner. He had been approved before, then denied, though nothing had really changed. He is a law-abiding citizen. Good stuff

 

[Right2Carry]

In plain truth, we have a bunch of lazy wimps in SCOTUS. SCOTUS simply does not want to work on tough issues. A “life-time” Maryland incumbent (most likely a friend to the SCOTUS), asks the SCOTUS to drop the case, because they also don't want to work on tough issues.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait several years until these old-outdated biased “life-time” Maryland incumbents pass.

 

[Boondock Saint]

From a purely Constitutional perspective, I agree with you. You would, however, be obligated to convict him if you were a good juror. You need to look at current laws, and determine whether he broke the law. Maryland law dictates that a firearm must be transported separate from the ammunition. Mr. Williams' gun was loaded. You could make a better argument if he were transporting the gun without ammunition. It is not for jurors to disagree with the laws, just to determine if people followed them. Changing the laws does not take place in the jury room. It takes place in the higher courts and legislature. If Mr. Williams were only transporting an unloaded firearm, it would be a much better case. This is not a very "safe" case. I do agree that everyone should be able to carry a handgun, and I feel that it should be able to be done WITHOUT the need for a permit. Current jurisprudence does not, however, support this (yet).

The Woullard case is better because Mr. Woullard was denied his Constitutional right by the State in an arbitrary manner. He had been approved before, then denied, though nothing had really changed. He is a law-abiding citizen. Good stuff

Read up on jury nullification.

 

[teratos]

Read up on jury nullification.

It occurs, and I don't disagree with it. It is a matter of great legal debate, however, is it not?

Again, do read my post as though I think Williams is wrong for doing what he did. I just think it is a lousy case to bring to a higher court. If you have a judge on the fence, his complete disregard for several statutes is not a good thing.

 

[Dogabutila]

Jury nullification is not a matter of great legal debate. It's accepted that nullification is a power of the jury. What IS a matter of debate is weather or not it is okay for anybody in the court to instruct or inform the jury of these powers.

 

[Patrick]

It occurs, and I don't disagree with it. It is a matter of great legal debate, however, is it not?

Again, do read my post as though I think Williams is wrong for doing what he did. I just think it is a lousy case to bring to a higher court. If you have a judge on the fence, his complete disregard for several statutes is not a good thing.

Nullification is the reason juries in our system must be composed of your "peers" - so that the government cannot stock it with people sympathetic to its views. The whole point was to include yet another check into our system - that the citizen's peers can nullify a law that is unjust without waiting for change at the ballot box.

Nullification is a constitutionally appropriate response to an unjust prosecution. That much is clear. Nullification was also abused by juries who refused to convict men who lynched others. But no constitutional challenge against it has ever been successful. Judges today want it to go away, under the assumption that all laws today are presumably just. But that is not the case. In some places it is reported that simply bringing it up will get you permanently removed from the jury pool, and I have heard of some cases where the word - once spoken - is enough for a judge to remove you from a jury after it has been empaneled. Though I think I read in a few such cases that such acts forced mistrials because the judge was "shaping" the jury to his/her liking. Simply put- the citizen has a right to vote down laws in the jury box.

In 1972, the Supreme Court spoke on the matter plainly, "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."


That is the controversy, not whether it is lawful or constitutional. And sure enough, some people look for an excuse to nullify anything. If nullification were well known to people, you could imagine a scenario where traffic tickets using red-light cameras would be nullified just because the jurors are sick of the system or upset over the tickets they might receive themselves.

It's not an academic discussion. This article talks about a Marine vet who walked away from having a pistol in his pocket in DC: Jury Nullification At Work in Gun and Drug Cases.

Inter-racial marriage was illegal in Baltimore up through the 50s. Would you have convicted me for marrying a woman with darker skin than myself? (Rhetorical Question, please do not answer).

When it comes to the exercise of a right, I have no problem evaluating the whole of the situation and not just the technical violation. Williams did nothing wrong. He should not be going to jail.

Everyone has a view and right to decide what is more valuable when the time comes to vote.

More: A good background piece from Fox News.

 

[teratos]

OK. Thanks for the explanations everyone. They say you should learn something new every day. Looks like I'm done for today.

 

[Sportstud4891]

Jury Nullification

Definately an eye opener for me. I had no idea that the jury can vote any way they want to. I thought that the juror's duty was to say if there is enough evidence to prove if the defendant broke any laws. Great info. I'm going to pass it along to people now that I know. I'm surprised that nobody (friends and family) have mentioned this before. Thanks.

 

[Bob A]

The fact that jury nullification is in fact legal and valid, and yet the jury may not be informed of it by any officer of the court, be it judge, prosecution or defense, strikes me as vile.

The de facto overturning of laws is a valid response to the proliferation of laws and regulations which have, by this time more or less made criminals of every one of us, should they be fully enforced.

 

[teratos]

Jury nullification could also be a very bad thing. See OJ Simpson.

 

[Boondock Saint]

snip...

Judges today want it to go away, under the assumption that all laws today are presumably just. But that is not the case. In some places it is reported that simply bringing it up will get you permanently removed from the jury pool, and I have heard of some cases where the word - once spoken - is enough for a judge to remove you from a jury after it has been empaneled. Though I think I read in a few such cases that such acts forced mistrials because the judge was "shaping" the jury to his/her liking. Simply put- the citizen has a right to vote down laws in the jury box.

Very interesting and perturbing as well. Who knew ducking one's responsibilities as a citizen of a republic were as easy as making your knowledge of the system known to those who operate it? Almost unbelievable. I'm likely going in for jury duty next week, too. Perhaps I can get a few uneasy stares from the crowd during voir dire.

 

[jashu360]

definately good information to know

 

[Patrick]

Jury nullification could also be a very bad thing. See OJ Simpson.

Good example. Look also to just about every lynching acquittal in the South.

The biggest push for nullifications right now are those having to do with drug legalization, especially targeting prosecutions for Cannabis growth and possession. Pro-Legalization groups routinely educate college and other groups about the right, and heavily push for its routine use.

Personally, I'd like to see nullification for those damn DC speed cams. Those things zing me about twice a year.

 

[offroaD]

Good example. Look also to just about every lynching acquittal in the South.

The biggest push for nullifications right now are those having to do with drug legalization, especially targeting prosecutions for Cannabis growth and possession. Pro-Legalization groups routinely educate college and other groups about the right, and heavily push for its routine use.

Personally, I'd like to see nullification for those damn DC speed cams. Those things zing me about twice a year.

Back when I was in high school 4 years ago, these things had just come out and I remember some of the kids went out and sprayed the lens black. I remember there was a lot of fuss about it because they are expensive, but in the end the two kids who did it got away because there was not sufficient evidence to charge them.

 

[jashu360]

Back when I was in high school 4 years ago, these things had just come out and I remember some of the kids went out and sprayed the lens black. I remember there was a lot of fuss about it because they are expensive, but in the end the two kids who did it got away because there was not sufficient evidence to charge them.

they should have been recognized as heroes and given medals

 

[yellowfin]

Nullification is the reason juries in our system must be composed of your "peers" - so that the government cannot stock it with people sympathetic to its views. The whole point was to include yet another check into our system - that the citizen's peers can nullify a law that is unjust without waiting for change at the ballot box.

Anyone other than me interested in the difference of the word "peers" between 1787 and now? The difference is just as striking and just as fundamental as the difference in meaning of the words "well regulated" and "militia".

 

[BenL]

I'd like to think that SCOTUS didn't kick Williams because it wasn't squeaky-clean. Ernesto Miranda was a life-long criminal and notable scumbag, yet his case fundamentally changed law enforcement and interrogation.

Maybe they know Woollard is coming eventually, and like the "smaller bite" it takes.

 

[teratos]

I'd like to think that SCOTUS didn't kick Williams because it wasn't squeaky-clean. Ernesto Miranda was a life-long criminal and notable scumbag, yet his case fundamentally changed law enforcement and interrogation.

Maybe they know Woollard is coming eventually, and like the "smaller bite" it takes.

Would Woullard be a smaller bite? It could still be a great opportunity to rule on "may issue" being in violation of the 2A.

 

[ffemtreed]

I'd like to think that SCOTUS didn't kick Williams because it wasn't squeaky-clean. Ernesto Miranda was a life-long criminal and notable scumbag, yet his case fundamentally changed law enforcement and interrogation.

Maybe they know Woollard is coming eventually, and like the "smaller bite" it takes.

I don't buy it was because he was a criminal at all. He was only a criminal because of a law that is unconstitutional that needs to be changed and that is why he was asking the supreme court to change that 1 law. It was clear as day his only contention is that 1 law should be changed.

I would agree with the SCOTUS didn't take the case if Williams robbed a bank with the gun or shot someone and then tried to reduce his sentence because of the unconstitutional gun charge.

Its pretty clear that the SCOTUS was AFRAID to take the case because they know deep down that they would have to make the right decision and it would change a lot of stuff overnight, regardless of the fact if its wrong in the first place.

It was too easy for them to just say we don't want to be bothered by it, send Mr.Williams to jail.

 

[Patrick]

They may have simply dispensed with this in favor of Masciandaro. It's similar fruit with less bite. It answers the public bearing question without the immediate heartburn.

Again...we'll see. I am not discouraged.