Article III Section II The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Fith amendment nor be deprived of life, liberty , or property, without due process of law; Sixth amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedyand public trial, byan impartial juryof theStateanddistrict wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall havebeen previouslyascertained by law, and to beinformed ofthe natureand causeoftheaccusation; to be confronted withthewitnesses against him; to havecompulsoryprocess for obtainingwitnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. Seventh amendment In Suitsat commonlaw,wherethevaluein controversyshall exceed twenty dollars, theright of trial by juryshall bepreserved,andnofact tried by ajuryshall beotherwise re-examined in anyCourt of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Eighth amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In my view, the judge is the one that needs to be put on trial. First for attempting to block the sheriff from upholding his oath of office in enforcing the laws of the United States. Second for, denying the Sheriff due process in his attempt. A stated reason why jury trials. The Right to Trial by Jury Clause guarantees that a wider group of people will look at the evidence and hear both sides of the case before they make their decision. If a single judge were given the power to condemn someone to life in prison or to death, the alleged criminal could easily become the victim of corrupt judge. Supreme Court Justice Byron White put it this way: "A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge..."
Yeah, he should have had a jury. This wasn't some traffic infraction, it was a big deal. The only proof you need to know it was a big deal is the reaction to this pardon.
You don't have to. I don't most of the time, but every once in a while I get exasperated. In that last thread, right after Charlottesville, I was more emotional than normal. But, just cause you don't participate in the echo chamber yelling at Nazi's doesn't mean you have to be on the other side either as I feel @Sinobas and to a lesser extent @Cippy91 were. They are wrong to do so. Free speech is free from government stopping that speech. It does not and has never meant that you can say whatever you want without anyone taking objection or saying mean or rude things about you.
Trump and the Governor of Arizona are the only one's I think that can correct this level of abuse by a judge. The Governor is probably politically fearful, so thankfully Trump doesn't fear political shit. This level of abuse has to be stomped on.
Perhaps, as I have said previously, I am not an expert in the law. However, if Trump had such a problem with this, there are tens of thousands of cases that match this criteria and he could have selected any one of them to make some point about jury trials. He did not, he chose JA for a specific reason. My belief is that he choose him to signal to racists that he is on their side without having to say it outright. But, the pardon was totally within the scope of what Trump was legally permitted to do.
It seems you reach way too far. I don't know of a case where an accused is denied a jury trial except where they request a trial by the bench.
People need to be careful about the last part. With the the internet, an angry mob is just a few tweets away. They already doxxed the wrong guy after Charlottesville. I don't even think it was discussed here. Free speech is going to become a tool for the independently wealthy. If you say one wrong thing angry mobs of hypocrites want you fired.
Will The Arpaio Pardon Make Trump More Unpopular? As the polls above show, a lot of people nationally didn’t have an opinion of a potential Arpaio pardon one way or the other. But a poll taken this week in Arizona, where people know Arpaio best, offers Trump little hope if he’s banking that voters nationwide will like his pardon more as they get to know more about Arpaio. OH Predictive Insights found that just 21 percent of Arizonans favored the pardon while 50 percent were against it. That is consistent with the fact that Arpaio lost re-election last year after being charged with criminal contempt, though he had not yet been convicted. Still, the large margin of public disagreement with Trump’s decision to pardon Arpaio is somewhat surprising given that both Maricopa County and Arizona overall narrowly went for Trump last year. This implies that Arpaio rubbing off on Trump could hurt the president both in this key swing state and nationwide as Arpaio becomes better known outside his home state.
Another potentially disturbing thing about the timing of this pardon is that it may be being employed at this time to signal to any of the people being compelled to testify in Mueller's investigation that Trump will take care and pardon them if they remain quiet and on Trumps side. It's a possibility. Not sure.
Also, @Denny Crane , "triggered" is a stupid meme and is meant to denigrate people with PTSD. The more you know.
