#jury speech

[independent-fics]

But that envelope entrusted you with the most important obligation of citizenship, and that is to find the truth. It's so important that we dare not give it to one person but to 12 strangers.

Leverage (2008-2012)

1x10 The Juror #6 Job

[greenleaf4stuff]

Incorrect Star Trek Picard #19

Elnor: I have cat-like reflexes.

Hugh: prove it.

Elnor: *points to a cat*

Elnor: I like that cat.

(Source: @incorrect-quote-templates)

[laugtherhyena]

Character inspo things, i thought about making these a lil while ago when the trend was going around but i could never think of enough characters to fill it all the way (i still can't, but eh fuck it)

[wolfgang1097]

What's up folks? After looking at all 39 of the short-lived Spy vs. Spy Sunday comic strips from 2002, this one is one of my favorites. I mean, panel three just melts my heart with Black mentioning his mother and father there. Seeing the illustration of his parents in the speech bubble in that same panel also has been giving me ideas, for some reason. Either way, it's just so heart-warming.

In panel five, that face is basically me whenever I receive a jury summons in the mail. Not to mention that's it is actually the image for the "This is gonna suck" trope page image. It's perfect for that.

As for the short-lived Sunday comic strips in general, it's hard to believe it's been almost 22 years since these have been made. I may have been in preschool (4-5 years old) at the time these were made, but holy frick I feel old (personally).

I do not claim ownership of the content. Spy vs. Spy belongs to the defunct MAD Magazine and the late, great Antonio Prohias. The Sunday Strips were produced by Dave Manak (illustrator) and the late, great Don "Duck" Edwing.

[anarchypumpkincowboy]

Hardison is so competent, so great in his grifts, like he might just win this case I believe in him

[twpsyn-who]

Talking a little bit about 'boycotting Eurovision' under Keep Reading, feel free to scroll down if is not what you want to see.

The most used argument on the matter of banning Israel from Eurovision is the fact that Russia got banned from Eurovision, which is the worst argument anyone could bring.

Kindly reminder that Russia didn't get banned because of the war with Ukraine. Russia got banned because many countries has threatened to withdraw from the competition. Sadly, that's a big difference.

Yes, the countries has threatened to withdraw because they support Ukraine and see Russia as the party in the wrong. That was their reason. EBU's reason for banning Russian was because those countries threatened to withdraw, not because the war was bad and Russia must be stopped.

This situation isn't the same. Why? Because many countries support Israel in their genocide. Because this time around Palestine is the party in the wrong. Because we're taught to believe that Israel isn't in the wrong here.**

Boycotting Eurovision won't work. There are people out there who don't know the truth and want to watch Eurovision. There are people out there who don't care and will watch Eurovision regardless of the situation. There are people out there who, despite having the facts, still don't see Israel as the bad guy in this situation and will watch Eurovision. Sadly, boycotting won't work unless everyone does it.

The only way Israel will get banned, in my opinion, is by going through the same thing as Russia. If other countries threatened to withdraw- and not any countries, but the ones investing the most in Eurovision, then yes. That will get Israel banned.

Otherwise? The only thing we do is hurt artists that don't deserve it. Artists who use Eurovision as a way to get more exposure and experience. Artists who deserve to be heard.

Don't vote for Israel's entry. Don't stream their song either. Heck, turn off the TV when is their turn to perform.

**This whole situation (the war, not Eurovision) isn't only black and white. Civilians die daily because of this, all of them from both sides. Innocent people who has no fault. Let's not forget that

[timeforamericasvote]

if matt takes out jag i’d love him but also it would cement that he’s just another stupid player of the season if he truly thinks he beats cirie.

[todaysdocument]

It’s Bill of Rights Day! Articles 3 through 12 were ratified on 12/15/1791, and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Article 2 became the 27th Amendment in 1992! 

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government

Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress

Image description:

A zoomed-in portion of the document, reading:

No law, varying the compensa--

Congress shall make no law resp--

--asemble, and to petition the Gov--

A well regulated militia, bein--

Transcription:

Congress of the United States began and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. 

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. 

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. 

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

ATTEST, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

[claire-is-6ft]

bbcan4 would have been an all timer without those damn brothers. Cass, Tim, Nikki and Mitch are some of my favorite bb casting of all time.

[tiikerikani]

So Vesterinen performed at the Emma awards tonight (the equivalent of the Grammys). Jepa and Heini even showed up for it! And a whole choir!

(edit: alt youtube link)

(They also won Vuoden Iskelmä, which was the only Emma nomination I felt they had any chance of actually winning)

Well, I'm not going to ruin it for the fanclub (unless they're reading this), but...

Spoiler under the cut...

You have been warned...

...

...

...

It's most likely a playback performance - so while the motions are real, you're hearing pre-recorded audio, not actually what they're playing on the stage. I know this because I've been on that stage (different venue but same event).

Yesterday's performance at the Iskelmä Gaala was legit though; you could tell because they actually had all their gear set up. (They got album of the year there, but those awards are by popular vote.)

[juricore]

the juri + utena fountain scene does hit different after watching oniisama e i will admit LOL

[brionbroadway]

if i didn’t watch australian survivor, you could absolutely convince me this was a parody 

[strohller27]

.

[nasecoo]

Thank god Dee won, she absolutely played the best game

[desthen]

[julia-keleher]

The Importance of Impartial Juries

I hope most Americans don’t learn about the US Constitution, and its Amendments, the way I did. My crash course in understanding my rights as an American citizen began when I was indicted for the first time in July of 2019. For the next 30 months, I struggled to reconcile what I understood my rights to be and the oppressive machine that is America’s criminal justice system.

During pre-trial my attorneys put forth arguments about my right to free speech (1st Amendment), my right to privacy (4th Amendment), and my right to a trial by an impartial jury (6th Amendment).   All those arguments give rise to additional due process concerns (14th Amendment).

In order to protect my right to a trial by an impartial jury, my attorneys filed a Motion to Change Venue, or a request that the case be heard in another venue. According to the US Department of Justice, change of venue is warranted if it is in the “interest of justice” as long as the move does not unduly inconvenience witnesses who will be called to testify.  In our request to change venue, my attornys argued that, if the trial were held in Puerto Rico, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ensure my right to trial by an impartial jury.

Common Concern Concerns about the ability to seat an impartial jury are common in criminal and civil cases.  Ensuring juror impartiality is even more difficult in high profile cases.

Earlier this month, concerns about seating an impartial jury affected the high profile case of the State of New York v. the Trump Corporation. The New York Times reported both prosecution and the defense struggled to find jurors that did not have disqualifying opinions about Mr. Trump. Reasons for juror disqualification include personal history with any of the parties, personal knowledge relevant to the matter, and personal opinions that engender bias. Albeit for different reasons, both the prosecution and the defense desire jurors capable of objectively evaluating facts presented at trial.

The central issue playing out in jury selection:  the public’s perception of, and feelings toward, Donald Trump. The Times reported that one juror said: “Mr. Trump has no morals. He thinks only of himself. I think he’s a criminal. I think he’s done irreparable damage to this country.” By the end of the first day of juror screening, the court determined more than half of the 130 potential jurors were unable to serve.  The only reason the court could identify and dismiss these jurors: they were honest about their ability to be objective.

Jury Trials Are Important The Founding Fathers designed the jury trial to be fundamental to America’s system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the “check” of a jury trial is not working as intended.  Today, many criminal cases never make it to trial. The trial process has been replaced by plea bargaining and negotiated punishments.  Jury trials are disappearing, and with it, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans’ 6th Amendment protections.

Juries serve as a check on the power of government in several ways. First, they hold the power to convict.  Prosecutors can allege but they cannot render final determinations on citizens’ guilt or innocence. Second, juries engage in an independent assessment of the facts as presented by both sides. Jurors also conduct their own evaluation the parties’ actions in the context of individual rights and legal responsibilities. Finally, they determine if the government met its burden of proof. To convict, no juror can be left with a reasonable doubt.

Equally important to the jury’s role in protecting citizens’ from the unrestrained powers of government, juries also serve as the sole mechanism for ensuring prosecutorial accountability.  Because prosecutors have immunity, prosecutorial error is rarely addressed. Consequentially, there is no negative consequence for prosecutors who bring baseless cases or violate laws during investigations.  If not for juries, citizens would be subject to near tyranny at the hands of all powerful prosecutors. The pervasiveness of the problem is easily seen when data on claims of prosecutorial misconduct are aggregated.

The Duty of Serving on a Jury Despite serving these critical functions, not all Americans agree that serving on a jury is part of being a good citizen. A Pew Research study found that only two-thirds of Americans feel jury duty is a civic responsibility.  The other one-third of respondents said there was little connection between jury duty and good citizenship.

For some Americans, the first question they ask when they receive a jury summons is “How can I get out of it?”.  The most common justifications for not engaging in jury duty: financial inconvenience, disability or medical condition, religious obligation, or caregiver responsibilities. The court often excuses jurors for these reasons. But these justifications do not always apply to every person.  In those instances, data suggest some are willing to lie to get out of jury duty.

Potential jurors go through an initial screening to “qualify” for jury duty.  Attorneys conduct voir dire with the qualified jurors. This process is intended to identify individuals who are unlikely to be able to decide the case fairly. According to expert Jeffery Frederick,  voir dire evaluations of jurors should focus on jurors’ backgrounds, experiences, opinions, beliefs, and values. These five elements define the mental framework through which the juror will interpret the case.

Not surprisingly, there is little agreement about what constitutes an “impartial jury”.  In addition to the five elements Frederick highlights, unconscious bias and privilege can also influence jurors objectivity. To further complicate matters, some experts assert  that inherent bias and the media’s ability to shape public opinion make it impossible to for people to really be objective.

Difficulties of Creating an Impartial Jury The consequences of not seating an impartial jury are significant. First, they may lead to an erroneous conviction and send an innocent person to prison. Unfortunately, this happens all too often. The National Registry of Exonerations includes thousands of individuals who were convicted but later proven innocent.

Convicted defendants can appeal their convictions based on partiality of the jury but success rates are mixed.  In Washington state, a convicted defendant appealed his guilty verdict but the appeals court rejected his assertions. The Appeals Court found that the defendant was “not deprived of her right to an impartial jury even [though] the court’s failed to excuse a juror who may have known the testifying victim”.   Appeals based on allegations that jurors’ racial bias led to an unjustified guilty verdict have been more successful.  In 2016 the Supreme Court held that the trial court must protect defendants from juries that include individuals who rely on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant.

Why Does it Matter Strengthening America’s system of jury trials is one way to protect citizens, restrain the power of the prosecutor, and increase citizens confidence in America’s criminal justice system.

Ensuring Americans have a criminal justice system that they can believe in requires greater understanding of the importance of the jury system, the important roles jurors play and the dangers inherent in failing to safeguard citizens’ right to a trial by an impartial jury.