|Subject: I've been asked some questions ...|
|From: Veronica |
|Date: 14/2/14 10:19 am|
When are the higher courts used?
Appeals ... or high-profile cases, such as murders, libels, etc.
What is the difference between Grand Juries and Crown Court juries?
A Grand Jury comprises (usually about) 25 people (selected from the regular Jury List) who sit in secret and hear initial complaints. They decide (on a Majority Verdict) whether or not Crown Court Indictments are raised.
Jury is derived from the “25 Barons” written into the Magna
Carta 1215, Article
61 (Lawful Rebellion clause).
If a Crown Court Indictment is raised by a Grand Jury, a Trial will occur in front of a Petty Jury. They comprise 12 people who sit, hear evidence, and decide on guilt according to that evidence.
Verdict should be unanimous ... or as near as possible.
Sometimes 11-1 or even
10-2 is accepted. Anything less warrants a re-Trial.
Jury -> Petty Jury mechanism is, therefore ‘pure’ Common Law
Law, where ordinary people decide everything: Who should be
prosecuted, and for
what, and whether or not they were guilty. Everything is decided
Common Sense ... as opposed to various forms of psychopathic
The Grand Jury mechanism
ran (for CENTURIES) until 1933, when it was 'suppressed' in
favour of other mechanisms. There are still Grand Juries in many
of the United States (although their 'power' has been
considerably watered down). Originally, a Grand Jury had
'ultimate power' ... which is something we need to fully
A Petty Jury still has 'ultimate power' ... but they are rarely told that, and are led to believe that a Judge can tell them what to do.
What does a Judge do?
The Judge is there to ensure that the proceedings run according to the established rules of the Common Law, to rule on Objections, and to ensure that the Petty Jury makes its eventual verdict based on valid evidence (according to the time-derived accepted rules of evidence i.e. ‘first-hand’ … NOT “Wot a bloke down the pub told me”, etc).
Judges do other things, such as define time-scales for each side (Prosecution/Defence) to meet, such as making sure disclosures occur when they should, giving each side sufficient time to digest the materials cross-provided.
in the case of Judge [or should I say Fudge] Stephen Warner who
and then completely ignored the fact that the Prosecution to
failed to meet
each one. But then, Warner was out to screw Michael Doherty, so
… “He would,
wouldn’t he?” … to quote Mandy Rice-Davies)
What does the Department of Justice do?
Basically they arrange to screw us all, as far as they can get away with it. Apart from that, I have no real idea ... and I'm sure very few of them do, either. (I make those statements based in interactions with many of them).