Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:27:05 -0700 From: AZRKBA@asu.edu
in a large number of u.s supreme court decisions the u.s. supreme court has ruled that ALL doesnt mean ALL. the court has ruled that ALL only means in cases where the government is going to jail you for over 6 months. here are a few of the supreme court cases which go back 112 years to 1888.
Baldwin v. New York, (1970) Callan v. Wilson, (1888) Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, (1974). District of Columbia v. Clawans, (1937) District of Columbia v. Colts, (1930) Frank v. United States (1969) Landry v. Hoepfner, (CA5 1988) Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. (1987) Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. (1975) United States v. Jenkins, (1986). United States v. Woods, 450 F. Supp. 1335,
the supreme court ruled in each of these cases that your not entitled to a trial by jury unless the crime carries a sentence of more then 6 months AND the judge plans to sentence you to more then 6 months.
you have probably noticed every time you see a city or county law posted somewhere it says punishable by up to 6 months in jail.
the reason almost all city and county laws have a punishment of up to 6th months is so the city or county government doenst have to give you a trial by jury.
a city or county judge can send you to jail with out you ever seeing a jury for any of these crimes.
for that matter several supreme court cases have ruled that even if the court plans to sentence you to 10 years in jail for 20 charges that all have sentences of 6 months or less you still dont need a trial by jury.
i dont have the figures to prove it but i suspect that the majority of americans who demand trials by a jury are denied a trial by jury because most criminal charges are punishable by 6th months or less in jail. but you guys have lots of resources and can verify if that has any truth in it.
here are some clips from the 3 Supreme court cases where they ruled a jury trial is not required.
U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. United States (95-6465), 518 U.S 322 (1996).
Petitioner was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, each charge carrying a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months. He requested a jury, but the magistrate judge ordered a bench trial, explaining that because she would not sentence him to more than six months' imprisonment, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The District Court affirmed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right pertains only to those offenses for which the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty of over six months' imprisonment, and that because each offense charged here was petty in character, the fact that petitioner was facing more than six months' imprisonment in the aggregate did not entitle him to a jury trial.
<snip>
The fact that petitioner was charged with two counts of a petty offense, and therefore faced an aggregate potential prison term greater than six months, does not change Congress' judgment of the particular offense's gravity, nor does it transform the petty offense into a serious one, to which the jury trial right would apply.
U.S. Supreme Court CODISPOTI v. PENNSYLVANIA, 418 U.S. 506 (1974)
Petitioners, Codispoti and Langnes, were tried before a judge in separate proceedings for contemptuous conduct that allegedly occurred during the course of their criminal trial before another judge, and were found guilty on each of several separate charges. The judge in the contempt proceedings, who refused petitioners' request for a jury trial, imposed consecutive sentences, Codispoti receiving six months for each of six contempts and three months for the seventh (aggregating over three years), and Langnes six months for each of five contempts and two months for the sixth (aggregating close to three years). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court BLANTON v. NORTH LAS VEGAS, 489 U.S. 538 (1989)
Petitioners, first-time offenders, were charged with DUI in separate incidents. The Municipal Court denied each petitioner's demand for a jury trial. On appeal, the Judicial District Court again denied petitioner Blanton's request but granted petitioner Fraley's. The Nevada Supreme Court remanded both cases, concluding that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense.
<snip>
There is no Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with DUI. This Court has long held that petty crimes or offenses are not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision.
<snip>
Supreme Court concluded, inter alia, that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense because the maximum term of incarceration is only six months and the maximum possible fine is $1,000.
<snip>
As for a prison term of six months or less, we recognized that it will seldom be viewed by the defendant as "trivial or `petty.'" Id., at 73. But we [489 U.S. 538, 543] found that the disadvantages of such a sentence, "onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the BENEFITS that result from SPEEDY AND INEXPENSIVE NONJURY adjudications." Ibid.; see also Duncan, supra, at 160.
>Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:42:21 -0700
>From: palidian@USWEST.NET (Lord Mark)
>Subject: Re: (fwd) - you cant have a stinking jury trial
>To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
>
>
>can we have the case law on thins please.
>
>"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
>advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
>boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the
>ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
>character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of
>your walks."
>--Thoma efferson
>Have Gu Wll Travel
>WirePaidian@uswest.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Arizona [mailto:AZRKBA@asu.edu]On
>Behalf Of LARRY JOHNSON
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 9:36 PM
>To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
>Subject: Re: (fwd) - you cant have a stinking jury trial
>
>
>sorry you dont have a right to a trial by
>jury when the government is planning on
>jailing you for less then six months.
>
>the us supreme court has flushed that
>part of the bill of rights into a swer
>many times since the late 1880's.
>yes thats 1880 not 1980.
-- IRA, CIA, FBI, KILL, TERRORIST, BOMB, TARGET, TERMINATE, JIHAD, CEASEFIRE, ATHEIST, ALLAH, FREEDOM, TRUTH, JUSTICE, MARIJUANA, POT, COKE, BREW, DOPE, SEX, DRUGS, TNT, C4, CORDITE, GUNPOWDER, REBELS, OVERTHROW, I love it when the government reads my email.