Not The Whole Book-But Should Be Enough

[Boxerrider]

1. Weak people aren't strong enough to tell you up front that they can't the work you're asking of them.

2. SJW - I give them my contact information, and offer to assist them in identifying a recent parolee with a string of previous convictions in need of a halfway house provider.

Good work - it sounds like the whole system came together on this one!

[03Lightningrocks]

A bad guy off the streets is a win.

[Ed4032]

I had a similar experiance on a rape trial. Teen charged as an adult in a gruesome rape. We ended up giving him 99 years. He was a habitual criminal and the judge made his other sentences to be served consecutive. The DA had offered him 40 years and he turned that down.

[RoyGBiv]

The SJW jury member on my jury panel a few years ago, at sentencing said, "I could never send someone to prison for that long". It was hard for me to maintain my composure. What part of being asked whether they could consider the full range of sentences (up to life, in this case), did they not understand. All they had to do was raise their hand and say "Judge, I could never send someone to prison for life", and they could have spared themselves a week of trial and possibly enabled the rest of us to add a few more decades to the sentence of a child molester.

[howdy]

I have actually served on 7 jury's, everything from Capital murder to grocery store theft....5 criminal and 2 civil. I must have that face that both side like. I was number 78 juror out of 125 in the panel for the Capital case. I was not asked one question and I never raised my hand or responded to a group question. I was still chosen. I put "retired" on the job question. They don't know if I'm a retire LEO, lawyer, judge, bank robber, etc. I still get chosen. EVERY jury I have been on has been great. They all cared about doing their duty to both the defendant and the State. I have found the lawyers for these cases are usually court appointed and the DA is not very good. (Don't be poor and be a defendant in court) The defense lawyer could care less and it showed and the Asst. DA only wanted to win. After two trials, the jury admonished both lawyers for their attitudes and one jury admonished the judge for his sleeping during the trial. (He had to be awakened multiple times and read the last few moments of the transcript to rule on a point of law) I had an asst. DA point the murder revolver at my face and say " "and he shot him and he shot him". I ducked behind the jury box wall and the judge stopped the trial for a few minutes. He called me and both attorney's to the bench and asked if that action was going to sway my vote in any way. I remember looking at the Bailiff and he was shaking his head with a disgusted look on his face.

[The Annoyed Man]

And, as per usual, SJW proved to be detached from reality, and unconcerned about the accused being a predator. Maybe it will take an encounter with such a predator to change his/her mind.

Something else.... based on the kind of questions I was asked both times I’ve been through voir dire, it seems that SJW did not answer all of the questions truthfully. BOTH times for me, the sentencing range for the charge being tried was explained by the prosecutor during voir dire, and the potential jurors were each asked if they would have difficulty reaching a guilty verdict given those guidelines. Didn't either the prosecutor or defense ask this during your voir dire? If so, then either SJW is a liar, or the prosecutor is incompetent.

Yes, that is correct that those questions were asked during the voir dire. Additionally, the first question asked was based upon how great our country is with its form of judicial system. The judge asked what one of the attributes were. I raised my hand and stated the right to face ones accusers.
Wow, what a stream that set off with the Prosecutor and the Defense. Seems the State would not be bringing in the victim. So the next logical question was "Would one have a problem if the victim did not testify?" The way the State charged him, etc. the Judge explained in the State could bring the charges, etc. and the victim would not be physically present.

SJW also claimed superior education with degrees in Eng., Petrochem, Law. Story line did not add up. SJW did become more obstinate when the Alternate was released.

We did find out that once we convicted the charged individual and if SJW had persevered in a Mistrial for the Sentencing a new Jury would have been seated. They would hear all of the evidence we did and would only debate/assign the sentence. So our fear of this felon getting off completely was unfounded.

I thought as much! Your answer confirms three observations I have about this type of person:

1. They will intentionally lie about their real beliefs, in order to place themselves in a position where they can put those beliefs into action. In this case, SJW lied about being able to convict given the evidence, and lied about whether or not the sentencing guidelines would affect their decision to convict.
2. They will make the argument that their "superior education" gives them "superior moral insight", and they will inflate their educational bonafides to enhance this argument. And when faced with having to choose between the humanity of the victim or the humanity of the accused, this "superior moral insight" will inform their finding in favor of the accused, under their belief that "the system" let down the accused, who is the real victim here, and that the state's victim is merely the collateral damage of how the accused was wronged by the system.
   
   Because the accused was wronged by the system, he/she has a diminished or nonexistent burden of guilt. In their view, collateral damage does not deserve justice, because no wrong was committed. It’s all the system's fault......and they are better positioned by virtue of their "educational and moral superiority" to discern all of this—so they are therefore following a higher calling by obstructing justice.
3. They are so comfortable with this kind of dissembling that they are completely unashamed when it all comes out in the wash at the end. They could not possibly be wrong, and it is therefore their obstinate and moral duty to disrupt the system from within whenever given the opportunity.

The fact that such a large portion of the population now view such internal disruption to be their solemn duty, is the reason our nation is in so much trouble today. They do not believe in objective truth—only "ideological truth". So when objective facts are inconvenient to their "ideological truth", they discount the facts, gaslight everyone in hearing, and go with their ideology.

I struggle very hard not to hate them with a deep and abiding passion, and to remember that they’re simply human beings who are wrong, rather than demons.....although as a religious person, I don’t discount demonic influence on the affairs of men.

[03Lightningrocks]

I struggle very hard not to hate them with a deep and abiding passion, and to remember that they’re simply human beings who are wrong, rather than demons.....although as a religious person, I don’t discount demonic influence on the affairs of men.

I sure can relate to this. SJW's make me want to spit.

By the way. I just noticed your signature. I love that last one.

Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings

[Middle Age Russ]

I thought as much! Your answer confirms three observations I have about this type of person:
They will intentionally lie about their real beliefs, in order to place themselves in a position where they can put those beliefs into action. In this case, SJW lied about being able to convict given the evidence, and lied about whether or not the sentencing guidelines would affect their decision to convict.
They will make the argument that their "superior education" gives them "superior moral insight", and they will inflate their educational bonafides to enhance this argument. And when faced with having to choose between the humanity of the victim or the humanity of the accused, this "superior moral insight" will inform their finding in favor of the accused, under their belief that "the system" let down the accused, who is the real victim here, and that the state's victim is merely the collateral damage of how the accused was wronged by the system.

Because the accused was wronged by the system, he/she has a diminished or nonexistent burden of guilt. In their view, collateral damage does not deserve justice, because no wrong was committed. It’s all the system's fault......and they are better positioned by virtue of their "educational and moral superiority" to discern all of this—so they are therefore following a higher calling by obstructing justice.
They are so comfortable with this kind of dissembling that they are completely unashamed when it all comes out in the wash at the end. They could not possibly be wrong, and it is therefore their obstinate and moral duty to disrupt the system from within whenever given the opportunity.
The fact that such a large portion of the population now view such internal disruption to be their solemn duty, is the reason our nation is in so much trouble today. They do not believe in objective truth—only "ideological truth". So when objective facts are inconvenient to their "ideological truth", they discount the facts, gaslight everyone in hearing, and go with their ideology.

We are seeing the fruits of institutional education (no sense of history and no lessons learned from it), moral decay supported by Statists calling for ever-larger and more intrusive Government, and the mediocrity and entitlement mindset fostered by "everyone gets a trophy" activities, helicopter parenting, and the like. So, it is a mess long in the making and many who should have known better are to some degree complicit. Even though you and I may have upon occasion helped foster the mess that these entitlement-minded millennials represent, they are still insufferable and I hope we find a cure for them in our lifetime.

[RoyGBiv]

I had an asst. DA point the murder revolver at my face and say " "and he shot him and he shot him". I ducked behind the jury box wall and the judge stopped the trial for a few minutes. He called me and both attorney's to the bench and asked if that action was going to sway my vote in any way. I remember looking at the Bailiff and he was shaking his head with a disgusted look on his face.

My hands started to sweat when I read this. And my blood started to boil.
I think I'd have been tempted to grab that gun and put it in the DA's prison purse.

Did he pull the trigger?
That definitely would have sent one of us to the hospital.

[ELB]

...I had an asst. DA point the murder revolver at my face and say " "and he shot him and he shot him"....

Wowser!

[PriestTheRunner]

I had an asst. DA point the murder revolver at my face and say " "and he shot him and he shot him". I ducked behind the jury box wall and the judge stopped the trial for a few minutes. He called me and both attorney's to the bench and asked if that action was going to sway my vote in any way. I remember looking at the Bailiff and he was shaking his head with a disgusted look on his face.

My hands started to sweat when I read this. And my blood started to boil.
I think I'd have been tempted to grab that gun and put it in the DA's prison purse.

Did he pull the trigger?
That definitely would have sent one of us to the hospital.

That is literally a Class A Misdemenor, unloaded or not. I would have been tempted to press charges.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... 22-05.html
''(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.''

[ScottDLS]

Likewise when I was called into voir dire for a DUI case, both prosecutor and defense attorney spent some time reading the law to us and asking if anyone would have trouble following it, basically. I would think a juror who answered yes at voir dire but no in the deliberations would be at some legal risk. If I were on the jury, especially as foreman, I would be tempted to report such juror to the judge. Sounds like the 11 of you did a good job of showing him or her a bit of common sense and integrity.


Question though: I cannot find a Penal Code citation for "aggravated" theft. There's levels of misdemeanor and felony theft based on the value of what was stolen, but I don't find the word "aggravated' in PC Chapter 31 Theft.

Can you explain a little more about the charges, what was stolen?

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

[abom2]

Likewise when I was called into voir dire for a DUI case, both prosecutor and defense attorney spent some time reading the law to us and asking if anyone would have trouble following it, basically. I would think a juror who answered yes at voir dire but no in the deliberations would be at some legal risk. If I were on the jury, especially as foreman, I would be tempted to report such juror to the judge. Sounds like the 11 of you did a good job of showing him or her a bit of common sense and integrity.


Question though: I cannot find a Penal Code citation for "aggravated" theft. There's levels of misdemeanor and felony theft based on the value of what was stolen, but I don't find the word "aggravated' in PC Chapter 31 Theft.

Can you explain a little more about the charges, what was stolen?

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

When we met with the Judge, D.A., and Defense at the end of it all another juror specifically asked the Judge what would have happened if we had not come to a unanimous decision on the sentencing.

It was good to hear the Judge say that while a new jury would need to be seated and would be given all of the same evidence, they would only deliberate the sentencing only, the conviction would stand.

Looking at the faces of the other 9 jurors it appeared that we all had the fear of having to declare that we could not reach a decision and thus create a potential avenue of escape for this felon.

A little internal reflection in the shoulda coulda realm by me has brought a fairly strong thought that if SJW had the fortitude to continue with their efforts and resulted in our jury having to declare ourselves hung, the next jury would stand a better chance at not having the Joker in the deck and the Convicted Individual receiving closer to 50 years in prison. This is just a gut feeling.

My reasoning on this hope is as follows:

A new jury would hear and see everything we did. Eleven diverse people in our group allowed for a 50 year sentence in the first polling prior to any discussion except SJW's initial protest. Granted one of the eleven put their position at 38 to 50 yrs, the other 10 of us stated 50 yrs. It basically became our commitment to ensure this person received a sentence that would remove him from our society long enough for him never to have an effect on it or be a threat to it.

To us, his past felony convictions had proven that he had no desire to live within society's rules and with that should not have any of the advantages of living in that society. We no longer build walls around our cities and towns to exclude those that do not follow the communities laws, we build walled enclosures to confine them away from us.

So with that said, and with the information given by the Judge after everything was finished the facts are:

Convicted Felon will not be eligible for parole until the age of 72. If he ends up performing the whole sentence he will be 90 years old upon release.
While not the number of years a majority wanted, it should get the job done.

It is a bit disconcerting to me that several days after completing this I find myself irritated that we (the jury) had to perform this task. For me it was very unappealing and not a pleasant task at all. This because on person could not live within our laws and another felt themselves morally superior to the other 11.

[03Lightningrocks]

I really believe many of these SJW's are trying to "prove" themselves to be "open minded". Most SJW's fancy thinking of themselves as intellectually superior to the rest of us. So they act like they do in order to suppress the guilt they have for their deeper feelings of doing what they know is truly right.

[ELB]

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

But having "cruddy facts" is not the situation here. If a prosecutor can't prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, that's a decision the jury is supposed to make. But in this case it appears to me the jurors were asked if the defendant was convicted, could they support the punishment the law provides. If a juror says yes in voir dire but then indicates in deliberation he lied, then the integrity of the justice system is most definitely compromised.