Freedom Lawyers of America

October 28,2005
Volume 7 Issue 13
"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
SECTIONS
Front Page
Business / Finance
Commentaries
Editorials
Entertainment
Sports
Viewpoints
More News
Web Exclusives
Archives

"Tribune Discussion Board"

Schiff Guilty Verdict Not Any Surprises
The fact that a Federal Jury has found Irwin Schiff guilty should not be a surprise to anyone.
Since the day the trial started, the judge who presided on the trial, US District Court Judge Ken Dawson, was not shy to show before the jury, his bias and antagonism against the defendant displaying a partiality never before seen.
In a jury trial the presiding judge should act as referee watching out that the defendant's rights are not violated and that the jurors are given all the evidence necessary to make an intelligent decision based on the facts and nothing but the facts.
In the Schiff case the judge acted more like a prosecutor by denying the most essential rights and sustaining almost every single objection made by the prosecution and overruled almost all the objections made by the defense.
It was obvious that the jury was well aware of the judge's antagonistic attitude against the defendant Schiff and this should have been a major reason for them to look very carefully and closely to all evidence and all facts.
They probably tried to do the right thing, but perhaps they were also scared and intimidated by the judge's behavior, ignoring the fact that jurors are more far more powerful that an unjust judge. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.
Jurors, as the representatives of the people, are to hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget thatprosecutors, judges, arresting officers - and the forensic investigators in most cases - are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.
The role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional governmental laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors are supposed to protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people.
Our country's founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.
That was not the case in the Irwin Schiff trial. That was not the behavior of the jurors sitting in the Irwin Schiff trial.
Enough of a "jury of your peers," it is very scary to put the fate of your life on the hands of 12 incompetent, submissive and inept narrow minded people.
Shame, shame, shame on those jurors!
"Tribune Discussion Board"
Patronize Our Affiliate Sponsors


Questions or Comments? email webmaster@lasvegastribune.comArticles may not be reproduced without permissionAll Site Content and Images : Las Vegas Tribune © 2001-2003