The jury is the cornerstone of a fair justice system. Recognizing this is the case, the framers of our Constitution provided Americans with guarantees of jury trials in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments.
The American justice system is designed for juries to work hand-in-hand with judges to render fair and just decisions. In proceedings involving honest judges, this system works extremely well, while in proceedings involving a corrupt process, juries perform an even more important role . In these proceedings, juries provide an obstacle to the corruption, albeit not an insurmountable one, because juries have the opportunity to render an independent decision. For a victim of a corrupt judicial process, in which the result is preordained by the judge, the jury provides the only hope for justice.
A judge heavily influences juries both by determining what evidence he allows the jury to see at trial and by the instructions he gives to the jury when rendering a verdict. This is a normal part of our judicial process and produces the most desirable results when honest judges are involved. With a corrupt judge, juries are still heavily influenced by the judge—in this case negatively influenced; however, sometimes juries will act independently, shrugging off the judge's influence and reach verdicts opposite to the corrupt judge's desire. Overcoming a corrupt judge is difficult under any circumstance, but a jury provides for this possibility.
In the case involving Jeff Baron, his adversaries have gone to extraordinary measures to prevent a jury trial. Jeff has repeatedly requested a jury trial, in letters to the judge, in motions to the court and in verbal pleas at hearings. Not surprisingly, the lawyer "claimants" have uniformly been vehemently opposed to a jury. These lawyer claimaints argue that a jury would "slow down" the process, and the judge concurs. "Slowing down" the process to permit the facts to emerge and permit the decision maker to carefully consider them is exactly the reason that we have a jury. On the other hand, circumventing a jury in a rush to judgment benefits those who desire to subvert the truth
Why would the lawyer adversaries with "claims" be so insistent on preventing jury to hear the evidence? And, why would the judge be so compliant with these demands and refuse to allow a jury to hear the evidence, despite the clear Constitutional right to the jury? Is everyone here afraid of what a jury might find?
So far, the lawyer adversaries have been completely successful in preventing Jeff from his constitutional right to a jury. A jury has never decided any issue in Jeff's case.
The American justice system is designed for juries to work hand-in-hand with judges to render fair and just decisions. In proceedings involving honest judges, this system works extremely well, while in proceedings involving a corrupt process, juries perform an even more important role . In these proceedings, juries provide an obstacle to the corruption, albeit not an insurmountable one, because juries have the opportunity to render an independent decision. For a victim of a corrupt judicial process, in which the result is preordained by the judge, the jury provides the only hope for justice.
A judge heavily influences juries both by determining what evidence he allows the jury to see at trial and by the instructions he gives to the jury when rendering a verdict. This is a normal part of our judicial process and produces the most desirable results when honest judges are involved. With a corrupt judge, juries are still heavily influenced by the judge—in this case negatively influenced; however, sometimes juries will act independently, shrugging off the judge's influence and reach verdicts opposite to the corrupt judge's desire. Overcoming a corrupt judge is difficult under any circumstance, but a jury provides for this possibility.
In the case involving Jeff Baron, his adversaries have gone to extraordinary measures to prevent a jury trial. Jeff has repeatedly requested a jury trial, in letters to the judge, in motions to the court and in verbal pleas at hearings. Not surprisingly, the lawyer "claimants" have uniformly been vehemently opposed to a jury. These lawyer claimaints argue that a jury would "slow down" the process, and the judge concurs. "Slowing down" the process to permit the facts to emerge and permit the decision maker to carefully consider them is exactly the reason that we have a jury. On the other hand, circumventing a jury in a rush to judgment benefits those who desire to subvert the truth
Why would the lawyer adversaries with "claims" be so insistent on preventing jury to hear the evidence? And, why would the judge be so compliant with these demands and refuse to allow a jury to hear the evidence, despite the clear Constitutional right to the jury? Is everyone here afraid of what a jury might find?
So far, the lawyer adversaries have been completely successful in preventing Jeff from his constitutional right to a jury. A jury has never decided any issue in Jeff's case.