I am kinda hoping time served....
Local judge just threw the book at a heroin dealer with several priors. 20 years !
....with all but 4 (four) days suspended and time served.
Gyrocopter lands on Capital lawn
- Thread starter jkgoblue
- Start date
Local judge just threw the book at a heroin dealer with several priors. 20 years !
....with all but 4 (four) days suspended and time served.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Your wrong. He's already been fired, but the reason he flew, the total corruption of lobbyists in government is so serious and he has done such a service that he should be given a pardon, a medal and his full retirement.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
With a jury trial, there could be a possibility for juror nullification. It would just take one juror with a bit of an anti-government bent to hang the jury. If this happened, the prosecution might decide not to retry. I know a lot of people who would vote not guilty right now even though the video clearly shows him breaking the law.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Very few jurors are aware of this and the prosecuting attorneys hate it, see it as an abomination....but it is one of the public's tools in seeing real justice done. I would be all over that in this case.
His only felony is flying without a registration.
There are no federal sentencing guidelines for this.
During the sentencing phase (if he's found guilty) precedent comes into play. I know several who flew with their registration expired, and received nothing but a letter as punishment. I haven't heard of anybody who has served a single day.
They will play aggravating circumstances, but it'll be interesting.
I hope he wins...... He probably won't, the feds don't want to lose and will use tons of our tax dollars to make an example of him.
There are no federal sentencing guidelines for this.
During the sentencing phase (if he's found guilty) precedent comes into play. I know several who flew with their registration expired, and received nothing but a letter as punishment. I haven't heard of anybody who has served a single day.
They will play aggravating circumstances, but it'll be interesting.
I hope he wins...... He probably won't, the feds don't want to lose and will use tons of our tax dollars to make an example of him.
rbridges
En-Route
Hopefully public opinion will help, but I feel like they will be firm with him b/c they have to show who's in charge.
Yeah, almost unheard of especially with today's jury instructions. And the defendant isn't allowed to even hint at juror nullification so it's very hard for jurors to know about it. If your only hope is juror nullification, you're toast. Even in cases where you get a person or two who are inclined to nullify, you have the 10 or 11 other jurors upset at them for wasting everyone else's time, because the judge will make them keep trying to reach a unanimous verdict. So very rarely do you get a juror who knows about nullification and has the fortitude to endure 5 days of bashing by fellow jurors before a mistrial is declared. Don't forget that the any potential jurors with an anti-government bent are going to get tosser. Each of them has to say that they're going to follow the law as instructed by the judge. If they don't, they're removed for cause. And if the prosecutors find out who the obstruction is, they're going to investigate him/her and see if s/he lied on the juror questionnaire or under oath during voir dire. And if so, you can bet that juror is going to be tossed and an alternate who isn't bent on nullification will be seated.
Basically, juror nullification happens but it's increasingly rare. I can't remember the last time it happened.
Last edited:
If that's a felony, there are a whole lot of potential felons out there.
The lesson being that you'll (probably) be left alone if you don't violate the law so as to upset the royalty.
rbridges
En-Route
It surprised me that THAT was the felony.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Here's is a copy of the indictment - 6 charges:
I think two are felonies:
"Operating as an airman without an airman's certificate" and "Owning an aircraft that is knowingly operated when the aircraft is not registered".
The others might be misdemeanors:
3 charges of violating airspace, and the real kicker, "Vehicle falsely labeled as a postal carrier".
I think using the post office logo will be the charge that ultimately puts him away.
http://tampabay.com/tbprojects/dcloud/dcloud-template.html?doc=2084596-doughughesindictment
I think two are felonies:
"Operating as an airman without an airman's certificate" and "Owning an aircraft that is knowingly operated when the aircraft is not registered".
The others might be misdemeanors:
3 charges of violating airspace, and the real kicker, "Vehicle falsely labeled as a postal carrier".
I think using the post office logo will be the charge that ultimately puts him away.
http://tampabay.com/tbprojects/dcloud/dcloud-template.html?doc=2084596-doughughesindictment
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
The fact that in addition to me that two other posters on this rather small representation of the American populace knew what I meant by juror nullification illustrates that it is a term that is known well enough to be a possible factor.
I'm calling total BS on all of this. Convenient that there are no media reports. And what "severe repercussions" could there possibly be? Every journalist knows about the first amendment, no "threat of severe repercussions" from the government would stop a journalist from reporting on a story.
We're hardly representative of your average juror and I'm a lawyer, so... Most jurors are ijits -- the smart ones or knowledgeable ones get excused. Remember, you are weeding out the people who know anything about the case, so your starting pool is composed of people who don't follow the news at all, not even Fox News.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well gyro guy did embarrass the government and the security machine. That alone is enough for the prosecution to seek the strongest penalty. They only need claim that he put the security of the nation and the visitors to DC at risk.
Not likely a direct threat of repercussions, but there are agreements with the press corps to not publish things that would reveal security threats. The courts have accepted "clear and present danger" as a reason for prior restraint. I don't think that happened in the two cases above.
Given the disruptions that occur with ANY presidential visit, it's become so commonplace as to no longer be newsworthy, at least on a typical day.
That and most news reports are regurgitation of press releases as few folks do the kind of reporting they used to.
I will also point out that certain journalists have become targets of government agencies. The good ones ignore the threat and continue reporting.
Perhaps Infowars could have picked up the story?
Not likely a direct threat of repercussions, but there are agreements with the press corps to not publish things that would reveal security threats. The courts have accepted "clear and present danger" as a reason for prior restraint. I don't think that happened in the two cases above.
Given the disruptions that occur with ANY presidential visit, it's become so commonplace as to no longer be newsworthy, at least on a typical day.
That and most news reports are regurgitation of press releases as few folks do the kind of reporting they used to.
I will also point out that certain journalists have become targets of government agencies. The good ones ignore the threat and continue reporting.
Perhaps Infowars could have picked up the story?
It would have to be an exceedingly rare case. Prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Neb. Press. Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 US 539, 559 (1976). I'm not aware of any prior restraint involving national security being upheld in the history of modern US jurisprudence. In fact, prior restraints have even failed where a newsrag wanted to publish an article intricately explaining the design of a hydrogen bomb -- back in the 1970s. See US v. Progressive, Inc., 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979).
Because the Court found in Nebraska Press that the “barriers to prior restraint remain high and the presumption against its use continues intact,” prior restraint orders are rarely upheld. As a result, editorial decisions about publication of information the government deems sensitive are generally left solely to the discretion of news organizations.
The Supreme Court has recognized that, theoretically, publication of some information may be restrained to protect national security. However, when The New York Times and Washington Post began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a study regarding U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the government tried to stop publication, the Supreme Court refused to uphold prior restraints on the newspapers because the government had failed to make a sufficient showing of harm to national security. See New York Times v. US, 403 US 713 (1971).
Besides, any prior restraint must be ordered by a judge (which would receive immediate and expedited appellate review). A random government official or secret service agent has no authority to order a restraint on speech. Unless these restrictions are authorized by a judge who has found a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice, officials cannot order reporters not to publish lawfully obtained information. The decision to publish in such contexts is a matter of ethical considerations, not legal restraints.
Like I said, I'm calling total BS on the previous poster.
Last edited:
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Well, I'm no legal scholar, just a simple Indiana country boy turned aircraft mechanic and pilot so I would think quite a few folks understand the concept and even if they did not know that it existed as a defined term, they might still deem it appropriate to exercise it on their own accord.
So.....
Suppose a juror gets through the trial phase and the plaintiff is found guilty of 1st degree murder....
Now the penalty phase comes around.... And one holdout for life over the death penalty throws a wrench in the gears of common sense.. Ie,, the slut who killed her BF in AZ....
Can that liberal minded juror get pitched and the nullification get overturned ?
Well technically nullification isn't effective until there is an acquittal or a decision not to retry. So unless the jurors all agreed not to give the death penalty, you would probably just get a mistrial as to the sentencing phase, but I'm just guessing. However, a requirement of being on a death qualified jury is that the jurors not be categorically opposed to the death penalty.So.....
Suppose a juror gets through the trial phase and the plaintiff is found guilty of 1st degree murder....
Now the penalty phase comes around.... And one holdout for life over the death penalty throws a wrench in the gears of common sense.. Ie,, the slut who killed her BF in AZ....
Can that liberal minded juror get pitched and the nullification get overturned ?
Once the jury has unanimously decided to impose life in prison rather than the death penalty, there is no way to vacate that even if it was the result of nullification.
Last edited:
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.Nice try legal eagle....
Now please answer the question....
1. If it's a true nullification, meaning that the jurors have unanimously agreed not to impose the death penalty (because one person had a categorical objection to the death penalty), it's done, finished, kaput. You cannot revisit that decision.
2. If it's just a mistrial because there was a 1+ juror holdout, a mistrial would be declared and an entirely new set of jurors would re-sit through the sentencing phase of the trial (all the mitigating evidence against the death penalty, evidence supporting the death penalty, etc. would all be re-shown to the new jury). So you couldn't throw off the single juror, you'd have to re-sit an entirely new jury panel.
3. If a juror made comments during the sentencing phase, but before deliberations, that s/he was categorically opposed to the imposition of the death penalty and in no circumstances would vote for death, one of two things would happen. Either that individual juror would be chucked and an alternate would be seated, or a mistrial would be declared and an entirely new panel would be seated. It would depend on the circumstances, I guess.
In practice for this to happen, a juror would have to lie during voir dire. Because prospective jurors who say that they would never impose the death penalty (or those who say that they would always impose the death penalty) will not be seated.
I don't think the Arias trial had anything to do with nullification, though. For it to be a nullification-type situation, you'd need jurors saying they're not going to obey the law or follow the law -- so, for example, if a juror says "I would never impose the death penalty under any circumstances" or "I would always impose the death penalty no matter what." But the imposition death penalty by its nature is a subjective decision. There's no law that says "you must impose the death penalty" (that would be unconstitutional), only that you "can" impose the death penalty. So it's left to the jurors' discretion, to consider anything they want. I think in the Arias case the original decision for/against death was 8-4, so there were more than a couple people who thought she didn't deserve the death penalty.
Last edited:
Bingo.... Winner ,winner... Chicken Dinner...
Ya, but like I said in my (edited) post, Arias was 8-4 so it wasn't that kind of a situation. You had jurors who just legitimately didn't want to impose the death penalty in that case. In the re-trial, it was 11-1, so that lone holdout might have been a nullifier, or he might have had the same objections as the previous 4. Hard to tell.
Legitimately is basically any reason other than a categorical opposition to the death penalty. Again, the imposition of the death penalty is almost entirely discretionary. So unless you have jurors going into it before hearing the evidence saying "there is no way I will ever impose the death penalty," any decision is legitimate. Jurors are instructed to basically search their conscience and come to a decision they feel comfortable with -- for any reason.Define LEGITIMATELY......
Neither one of us were in the jury. From what I've heard in the media, I personally think she deserved the death penalty -- especially because of the lack of remorse she displayed (she seems like a manipulative viper, to put it nicely). But she put on a real sob story for the jurors about how she was abused and has mental problems, so who knows what they heard, what they deliberated about, and what they were thinking. I'm not in a position to second-guess, and really neither is anyone else except the other jurors and people who were actually at the trial and heard all of the evidence. As I'm sure you know, the media is not super reliable when it comes to presenting balanced coverage.
Here are some sample jury instructions on death, to give you an idea:
By law, you must now consider whether justice requires imposition of the death penalty, or life in prison without any possibility of release, on the defendant.
This is a decision left exclusively to you, the jury. I will not be able to change any decision you reach regarding the death penalty, nor regarding life imprisonment without any possibility of release. You, and you alone, will decide whether or not Defendant should be executed or sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of release. Thus, I again stress the importance of your giving careful and thorough consideration to all evidence before you. I also remind you of your obligation to strictly follow the applicable law. At the same time, I remind you that none of you individually, nor the jury collectively, is ever required to impose a sentence of death.
In short, the law does not assume that every defendant found guilty of first degree murder should be sentenced to the death penalty. The law does not assume or presume that Defendant, as he sits before you, should be sentenced to death or to life in prison without any possibility of release. This decision is for you, the jury.
In order for you to decide that Defendant should be sentenced to death, you must reach a unanimous decision that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence. This means that each of you must be individually convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that death is the appropriate sentence before it is possible to sentence Defendant to death. If just one of you believes that death is not appropriate – or that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence – then you must not sentence Defendant to death, but rather to life in prison without any possibility of release.
You must each decide whether the sum of the aggravating factor or factors you have unanimously found to exist, sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factor or factors that you have individually found to exist -- including the mitigating factors to which the parties have stipulated -- so as to justify sentencing Defendant to death. This determination is left entirely to each of you, individually.
If you have decided that the aggravating factor or factors which you have unanimously found to exist, sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factor or factors which you have individually found to exist -- including the mitigating factors to which the parties have stipulated -- you must then decide whether to impose death. You are never required to impose a sentence of death.
In carefully weighing the various factors at issue in this case, you are called upon to make a unique, individualized judgment about the propriety of sentencing Defendant either to death or to life in prison without any possibility of release. This is not a mechanical process. Rather than counting factors, you should consider them qualitatively. Your decision must be a reasoned, moral response.
You are never required to impose a death sentence. You have complete control and discretion in determining whether or not the circumstances of this case justify a sentence of death.
You must consider whether the aggravating factor or factors you have unanimously found to be established in this case sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factor or factors each of you, individually, find to be established -- including the mitigating factors which both parties have stipulated exist -- before you may consider imposing a sentence of death. You may consider mercy in making this determination.
If you decide to impose the death sentence, the Court is required to impose that sentence. If you decide that the death penalty should not be imposed in this case, Defendant will be sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of release.
Last edited:
Darn..... Just when I was going to put you on my ignore list, you appear to be actually human.....
..Now I guess I have to buy the first round of drinks....
LOL you had doubts?Darn..... Just when I was going to put you on my ignore list, you appear to be actually human.....
Now I guess I have to buy the first round of drinks....
Btw, if you look at the non postal vehicle statute, one of the requirements for conviction is that he not be carrying us mail. I thought he was? (500+ letters?) Plus, that statute might very well be unconstitutional. I think the US Attorney would be dumb to pursue it.
And... Lance Armstrong has the USPS plastered all over his uniform and bike, and was not carrying mail,,,,
.. Just a boatload of Steroids..So , was he acting illegal ??
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Read wiki's entry about Jury Nullification
Apparently has a sound basis, looking at the original history!
Apparently has a sound basis, looking at the original history!
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
The way they charged him, the parent of any kid that paints 'US Mail' on the side of his red-ryder wagon is subject to federal indictment.
Reading the law itself, it looks like it was intended to restrain private steamboat companies from gaining a competitive advantage by claiming that they carried US mail.
The felony they charged him with requires you to 'knowingly and willfully' operate an aircraft eligible for registration without such a registration. He bought an ultralight and was a couple of pounds overweight, we'll see how they set out to prove that he was 'knowingly and willfully' operating above the part 103 weight limit. Has anyone else ever been criminally charged for flying too heavy of an UL ?
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don't you realize that 535 of our nation's most precious and valuable human beings were in mortal danger of hearing a slight sound if the gyrocopter went so far as crashing into the Capitol? These people need to be protected at all costs! This cannot stand! To the gallows with this terrorist!
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
Are you saying that they can be removed for "cause" by being anti government AFTER the defense rests and the case goes to the jury? That's insane! The prosecutor should have no standing to interfere with the jury after deliberations begin.
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wouldn't. The legalities aside, the lapdog media, including the often fawning White House Correspondents, want access. Access is everything. If they print a story about things mentioned by Shepard, do you think they will get access, or be allowed to ask a question at a new conference?
I know for a fact that some first families and other high profile, powerful politicians' activities are swept under the rug by the press, never to see the light of day.
No clue. Didn't know the background on why they were charging him either. Do ULs not require registration?