What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas

It still exist under common law and law common to I

Being judged by 12 inept and unemployed morons under the guise of “your civic duty” is the most laughable concept in the world.

Good video.

Imagine randoms decide your fate
God bless i don't life in america

Why do some of these characters look like incredibles characters?

I’d hate to be on a jury because depending on the case I’d be forever questioning myself “did I allow my own bias to affect my vote?”

Jury duty should require a college degree. And jurors should have a quick synopsis of what constitutes good and bad evidence. Most layman simply cannot differentiate between the two.

What planet are you on???

Yeah the fantastic jury system where OJ was released with practically blood on his hands. It's ridiculous to assume jurors have no ulterior motives whereas experienced judges have. They either have bias or just want to get off the case ASAP. For health, education, business and everything else, we want trained professionals, why on earth would we want some bored layman to decide our legals disputes?

The jury is from Maliki jurisprudence, not from Britain 🙄

Same thing that happened to Princess Ida and Utopia Limited - it fell by the wayside in favour of The Pirates of Penzance .

DEFEBDENT: I want my Constitutional right to jury trial.
JUDGE:🖕

DEFENDENT ON APPEAL: The lower court denied my Constitutional right to jury trial.
APPEALS JUDGE: 🖕

Personally I changed my tune actually working in that system. I have seen people never before really dealt with the criminal justice system who were completely innocent, however they had a plea slammed down and told they can take 2 years or risk it and get 5. It happened alot even DV cases where the wife made the whole thing up fully recanted heck there was no injury or injury to the guy instead and still if they signed the plea guilty. Are criminal justice system needs to be burnt down asap and rebuilt from the ground cause I can assure you as an insider it will not happen with how things are going now.

99% of the time,
don't ever trust that a public deffender is going to actually work for you. He or she works for the system!
He or she assigned to your case does not work for not you!

(orruption in the American criminal court system is more common then most people would like to believe. I took a felony case to trial before and the judge in my case,
( Judge Gail Z Bardach )( superior courtroom#6 hamilton-county IN )
she added a new charge to my case & she did this after both sides finished there final arguements!

(((So final arguements had allready took place, the trial was over, all that was left,
was for the judge to read jury instructions. Then obviously the jury exited the court room to deliberate & decide innocent or guilty.)))

In the process of reading & explainning jury instructions to the jury for jury deliberation.
She litterately took part of my defense that my lawyer used to prove my innocents and turnt it into a new charge.
I started the trial facing 2 felonies & by the end of trial, just before the jury was to deliberate.
I was facing three felonies.
Every charge that someone faces in a criminal case. Each one has a cause#
So how is the judge adding a new charge to my case during the jury trial not corruption.
especially giving the timing of when she decided to add it.
She added the new charge at the end.
She added it at a time, when there was no chance for me & my lawer to defend my innocents against it, explainning my side of the situation.

Her adding the new charge at anytime during the jury trial would have been criminal malpractice but the fact
that she added a new charge to my case at the end of my trial proceeding. A new charge that had no cause# attached to it. WELL THATS CRIMINAL
The inntensions of that act by the judge,
even though probably not PREMEDITATED before the initial trial proceedings started. WAS CRIMINAL
The intennsions were carefully thought out, it was criminal & unmoral.
the intennsions were Purpossed & intended towards unjustly & wrongfully convicting a citizen. Her intennsions were purposed & intended towards taking away a innocent citizen's freedom & his right to a fair & unbiased trial hearing to prove his innocents.

but speaking of PREMEDITATED
I did find it odd that a bar tender from the very bar that called the law on me in the very case that I was fighting was selected to come in for possible jury duty on my case.
0utta around 330,000 residents of hamiltoncounty whats the odds of that happening?

(American_Intermediary)

I Thank God & I THANK MY PEERS, (((the citizens that were on my jury))) because they saw through the judges unjust behavior & her decision to try and trick the jurors. Ultimately finding me to be not guilty of all charges, even the one that she added in at the end of the trial.
Thankyou also to my paid attorney Lawerence M. Hansen !
Without him & instead if I would have had to have had a public defender. I would have been forced to admit guilt to crimes that I didnt commit.

Even though I was not guilty & was found to be not guilty by my peers in that court room sitting on the jury !!!!
THIS IS CORRUPTION THAT HAS GOT TO BE EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC !
IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED by the legal court system !

( sealed & withheld from the public , TRANSCRIPTS of the jury trial proceedings )
This is an example of corruption that can be proven through evidence. Evidence thats being held and unlawfully seized from the publics view at the Hamilton County IN. Court House.
( sealed & withheld from the puclic , TRANSCRIPTS of the jury trial proceedings )


( judge gail z bardach superior courtroom#6 HamiltonCounty IN. ) She has recently retired from being a judge.

this comment is off topic but just wanted to share it.

( judge gail z bardach superior courtroom#6 HamiltonCounty IN. ) she has recently retired
( 7/1/2022 ) from being a judge.

judge gail z bardach gave a interview to the
The Noblesville Times on june 22 2022
This is a quote that she gave in that interview

& I quote

"Another thing that has been especially rewarding has been conducting jury trials,
I love interacting with people & letting them see how the system really works.
Jurors often tell me, after our trials, what a positive and educational experience their jury duty has been."

End quote

Did plea bargaining become a Thing after segregation?

A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments).

When any of our rights are violated we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state.

According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."

A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments).

When any of our rights are violated we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state.

According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."

This system was introduced to Europe in 8th century in Sicily it was called Lafif in Islamic law. It was practiced every where in North Africa and Spain. It is like the English jury now.

I think its so weird, that random people decide over your fate. They aren't professionals. The emotional aspect is way to important and thats why the people on trial try to be likeable.

So those are the ones Amber Heard constantly look at....I bet they turn their faces away

Trial by jury was a fine idea...in the year 1158. In civilized countries it's professional judges (appointed, not elected) who decide trials.

Such a weird thing...in my country we have only a judge or a few judges

Juries:

1. Are randomly selected, hence allowing for limited bias. However. the defense and prosecution can object to a jury due to their background.
2. Are less likely to be politicized as they are randomly selected.
3. However, they are given a smaller compensation of 20 USD per day in many courts & hence jurors may try to end the case ASAP.

I think we should keep juries but increase compensation to include lost wages. (Unless the juror is an investment banker or some other super high paying profession)

Juries are loaded with dopes. Screwballs that should not be hearing cases. They judge by emotion and not by the law. We should have professional juries made up of law graduates. Graduates that have been taught what the law means.

Summary judgment can only happen in civil cases, and only if one side can show that there are no material facts in dispute.

You know nothing about a trial by jury. You better study Andrew Hamilton and his case of 1634 that put the fire in ther people to create the Declartion of Independance. Ic I've to see a trial by jury in America as they always dismiss the case.

The truth is nobody wants to waste a day for 9 dollars a day. Does the judge, prosecutor, defense council, bailiff, and stenographer work for 9 dollars a day? Spoiler alert they don’t. So I don’t.

So jury is like a symbol of democracy? Where people has the power to decide?

I’m confused as to how jury system is so costly when they pay so little to be one. That’s why nobody wants to spend an entire day or days or even weeks to get paid $10/day. How can the government demand that companies pay “living wages” while they pay so little?

Being a typical arrogant continental European, i can't understand how a society can let just some random folks decide on a criminal trial, especially in a country with the average education level of the US. It's like in the middle ages. Judges here are educated for a long time to decide on these matters.

So US citizens are ceding their power to politicians, corporations and prosecutors.

The animation is top tier

Shows the power of the supreme court when they "interpreted" all crimes as 1% of crimes.

The US map is so wrong lmao, you put a LOT of Canada into the US in your map. Southern Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick ARE NOT and never will be a part of the US

suggestion : DON'T ELECT JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS

From a country that doesn't have a jury system, this is mind-boggling to me.
Why would someone who doesn't know the law interpret it? Krazy

In the Netherlands we don't have juries at all, which to me seems way fairer and professional. Most people will not take their juror job seriously, trying to get out asap and will most likely fall for the demagoguery of lawyers. It's better if professionally trained judges analyse the evidence and give an objective and fair verdict. No sane pilot involves the passengers in flying the plane. They are simply not trained for it.

This video is heavily biased

If democracy is mob rule in the political system, trial by jury is mob rule in the justice system.

When you have a jury that has a say in the verdict of a trial it becomes more of who can push emotional buttons and move a crowd and less about real facts and evidence. Public opinion has often turned out to be objectively wrong and we can therefore not trust the wider public to think critically in all trials.

Our OUTLAW JUDICIARY usurped it just like they did with the power to "make law"!!!

good old days

Selected Jury should be educated and unbias

Plea bargaining in the US is pretty much skewed in favor of the prosecution.

In many other countries, it is the accused/defendants that initiates/moves to undergo plea bargaining subject to certain rules and conditions.

I believe summary judgment exist because too many people try to get out of going to jury duty. They want the privilege of having a jury but then they don’t want to participate as a member of the jury. The thing about summary judgment is that you can appeal them and The appeals court I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.