Mentioning Case Law is Contemptible??

10-05-2010 • Free Patriot Presss

I was to appear for a jury trial for a seat belt violation on October 4, 2010 at 8:30 AM. I arrived 30 minutes early to ensure I was able to be in the right room of the court house. Around 8:45 someone walked in the room I had been instructed to wait, along with a handful of other people. This woman asked for names, making marks for the others, I wasn't on her “list” and she told me someone else would be in for me shortly. After waiting for another hour, I was called out of the court room and taken into the “Judge's Chamber.” The man sitting behind the desk (never introduced himself as “Judge” or anything else) asked me if I was “guilty” or “not guilty” of my seat belt violation. I replied, “I've requested a jury trial.” He asked once again, I again replied that I had requested a jury trial. He said, “I know, but were you or weren't you wearing a seatbelt?” I replied that I was not, but that I had requested a jury trial. He asked why I wanted a jury trial if I was guilty. I responde

1 Comments in Response to Mentioning Case Law is Contemptible??

Comment by Powell Gammill

Entered on: 10/14/2010 11:04:21 AM

$25 for the privilege of taking up so much of the judge's precious time. Sweet. If only every person in your state did this for minor traffic offenses.

Of course the jury found you guilty. Why would you think otherwise? There were only six of them. And it is far easier to find six spineless rubes than twelve...assuming the verdict must be unanimous in the first place.

Could you have won as opposed to "won"? (meaning you did win--- $25 is cheap for getting to tick off a black robed pirate) Possibly, but you would have had to impeach the officer's testimony by getting him to testify without objection beyond his expertise. Marc Stephens has such a dialog in his book, "Adventures in LegalLand."

Make a Comment (1) • Email Link • Send Letter to Editor