AMENDMENT VI
IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A ... TRIAL, ... BY JURY ...
RIGHT THERE IT SAYS
IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
BUT WHAT YOU PROBABLY DIDNT KNOW IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT BUEROCRATS HAVE FLUSHED THE CONSTITION DOWN THE TOLIT AND YOU NO LONGER HAVE THIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
YOU HAVE PROBABLY NOTICED THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY DAMN LAW PASSED BY CITIES AND COUNTYS HAS A MAXIMUN PENALTY OF 6 MONTHS.
IS THAT BECAUSE EVERY LAW PASSED BY CITIES AND COUNTIES DESERVES A 6 MONTHS SENTENCE AND NO LONGER. NO! ITS A SCAM SO THE CITYS AND COUNTY'S DONT HAVE TO GIVE YOU A TRIAL BY JURY.
WHAT THE HELL DOES A 6 MONTH JAIL TERM HAVE TO DO WITH A TRIAL BY JURY?
YOU SEE THE US SUPREME COURT IN A NUMBER OF CASES HAD SAID THE WORD ALL DOESNT REALLY MEAN ALL LIKE IN
IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A ... TRIAL, ... BY JURY ...
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRAIL IF THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY GOING TO TOSS YOU IN JAIL FOR SIX MONTHS OR LESS ON EACH CHARGE ITS ACCUSING YOU OF.
THESE SUPREME COURT CASES ALL SAY THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE A TRIAL BY JURY
"SHE WOULD NOT SENTENCE HIM TO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT (ON EACH CHARGE, A TOTAL OF 1 YEAR FOR BOTH CHARGES) , HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL."
THE COURT WENT ON AND RULED THAT EVEN THOUGH HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO A YEAR IN JAIL FOR ALL THE OFFENCES HE WAS CHARGED WITH A TRIAL BY JURY WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE EACH OFFENSE WAS PETTY IN CHARACTER.
"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."
HERE ARE SOME SNIPS FROM THE ABOVE CASE WHICH SHOW CLEARLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS FLUSHED YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY DOWN THE TOLIT.
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>HELD: 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.