Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST)
> From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
> Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN]

> Why would this be "unconstitutional?"

Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which
the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers.

> Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of 
> evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain 
> politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep 
> the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20 
> years.

Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have
been abused. One wrong does not justify another.

> One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine 
> trees, and some vertical slope would do justice. 

Actualy 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail,
or a justice system that gets abused.

> (Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?) 

Irrelevant.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 8:55 PM -0500 11/11/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>
>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST)
>> From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
>> Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can
>>call it that) [CNN]
>
>> Why would this be "unconstitutional?"
>
>Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which
>the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers.

	Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to
warrant a full trial.

>Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have
>been abused. One wrong does not justify another.

	Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is
there enough evidence to try this person" type trial.

	This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial
where there will be 12 to judge.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com