Reply to How do I know if I’m a MAGA?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "How do I know if I’m a MAGA?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA. [/quote]

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?[/quote]

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges. [/quote]

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.[/quote]
How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.[/quote]

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.[/quote]

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict.  from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic.  it doesn't[/quote]

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened. [/quote]

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high. [/quote]

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there. [/quote]

PP suggested it is too difficult to think such a jury could be impartial. The framers thought otherwise, so strongly that the made it a constitutional right of the accused. [/quote]

No, learn to read. The framers in no way assumed the impartiality of the jury in the state/district where the crime is committed. The fact that they made it a requirement for the jury to be impartial indicates that they are concerned about the impartiality of such a jury. [/quote]

[b]We can all read the Constitution[/b], the rules of criminal procedure, and the case law that goes with it. An impartial jury is a right. A defendant can file a motion to change venue due to lack of an impartial jury, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, so yes, the court does assume impartiality unless on motion the defendant satisfactorily meets the burden of proving otherwise, and the court has wide discretion when considering these motions. They are rarely granted.[/quote]

Well, apparently only some of us can read the Constitution. The rest of what you wrote is all true, and I agree with everything. However, the previous claim is that the US Constitution requires that the trial take place in the state/district where the crime occurred. This is factually and unambiguously false. People should just admit their mistakes and move on, rather than be gleefully dismissive when others point out their mistaken understanding. [/quote]

It is required and is in fact the presumptive location of the trial: "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." There are often exceptions to and relief from requirements. Court rules provide such an exception if the defendant can prove, for example, that an impartial jury cannot be found in the required location. If you want to say that then means a requirement is not a requirement, then you are playing with semantics. Either way, the whole actual point of this side tracked part of the thread doesn't change.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics