Combat Medic

It depends on if the court was smart enough to run more than one case through the jury.

RichardKenner

That wouldn't matter to me as a juror. I'd greatly resent having to spend multiple hours of my time (the minimum any trial can take) deciding if somebody should be fined $100. Even if later that day I was asked to decide something more momentous. And it would be very unlikely to be able to have the same jury sit on two different cases since the questioning and requirements for each would almost always be different.

T.J. Bender

The Constitution is limited by practicality. Anyone here know the Seventh Amendment? The one that says the right to trial by jury is preserved in any civil case exceeding $20? The Supreme Court has never upheld that dollar value, simply because of inflation. The cost of a jury trial is far higher than $20--far, far higher--and it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars to do so.

The same rule applies to a $150 speeding ticket, or a $200 citation or a simple violation, which is essentially a ticket for taking his pants off. There's no jail time at stake, no criminal record to be built, just a fine if he's found guilty. Due process is upheld with a bench trial in this case, as the repercussions of a guilty/liable verdict (depending upon how Oregon terms its citation cases) are far outweighed by the costs of summoning prospective jurors, performing voir dire, dismissing/disqualifying those who have legitimate excuses or biases, then going through peremptory challenges and challenges for cause before finally settling on a jury--a jury that will then sit for what's likely to be a two-hour trial (at most) during which they will be shown photographs of the defendant standing naked at a TSA checkpoint at Portland's airport. The judge would essentially be wasting the time of 6-16 people (depending on Oregon's jury size and alternate juror requirements in such trials), and wasting the money of the court. No judge is going to bank on jury nullification like that for a citation.

It would be nice to see this go before a jury, but I fully understand why it's not. If every case of this nature went to a jury trial, the already-overloaded courts would be bogged down for years to come.

UshuaiaHammerfest

I imagine in this particular case there's potentially slightly more to it than that. If this were a misdemeanor, the man would be able to ask for a jury trial, and then if there were a jury trial, this would likely rise to the level of "news" (from real, actual journalists -- not the silly blogger that thinks he's a journalist). Further, the man's defense in either case is likely to be the first amendment. First amendment cases are *extremely* expensive to prosecute.

By dropping the case to an infraction the DA eliminates all of the above issues. The man still gets his day in court & due process, still gets to claim free speech, wave the American Flag, and hum the Battle Hymm of the Republic while the verdict is read, and likely gets off with a slap on the wrist. Everyone is happy.

GUWonder

I am not. I just prefer further limitations upon the government such that governmental taking of US person's life, liberties or property -- whether determined by judges or executive branch personnel -- are addressable by a jury of commoners in a court of law before such governmental taking of life/liberty/property occurs.

If the government finds a jury trial too expensive, then perhaps government should restructure such that it is not doing so much and making just about every adult a violator of some law or another.

PTravel

Can't be done. Part of due process with respect to jury trials is the ability to voir dire and eliminate jurors for the perception of bias. A jury panel acceptable to one set of litigators may not be acceptable to another.

Pesky Monkey

I wouldn't. If the government wants to send a case to a jury trial for $100 that's their problem. The defendant is just standing up for his/her rights.

UshuaiaHammerfest

And therein lies the entire issue. There's no right guaranteed anywhere that says that a non-criminal defendant facing a penalty of $100* is entitled to a jury trial. There's no right to stand up for here. There's no incarceration at stake. There's no criminal record at stake. Just because I claim I have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when none exists doesn't make it actually so.

The defendant *does* have the right to due process, which is a right non-criminal defendants stand up for every day when they ask for their case to be heard by a judge.


*(7th Amendment adjusted for inflation, yada yada yada...)

Pesky Monkey

Who said it's not a criminal offense?

RichardKenner

Which means a jury is completely irrelevant because that's a matter of law, not fact. The only issue here is the potential for jury nullification.

RichardKenner

The fact that no jury was required. If it's a criminal offense, the defendent is entitled to a trial by jury: to a large extent, that's the definition of a criminal offense!

GUWonder

The US Government administratively taking the life, liberty and/or property of US persons for a criminal offense can and has taken place without trial by jury.

A party to a conflict with government and/or society being "entitled" to "trial by jury" is not the definition of a criminal offense.

RichardKenner

Life or liberty? Can you give some examples? As to property seizures, that's not a "fine" or "penalty", but technically seizing property allegedly used in a crime, which, as you say, does have a different standing in the law in that it doesn't require conviction of a crime (or even a crime being charged). But that's a very special case and not the sort of thing we're talking about here.

GUWonder

Yes: life, liberty and/or property. Yes: from US citizens on aviation blacklists to US citizens on extermination lists. No: property seizure are enabled by fines and penalties; and it is talked about here too and is not as special a case as it used to be.

InkUnderNails

Roll up my britches and wade into the waters of OMNI. . .

Administrative searches
Civil forfeiture
Imminent domain expansion
Inflation adjusted 7th (new one to me)
Campaign finance laws
Assault-style weapons and handgun bans
A tax for not buying a product
No-knock entry
Sobriety checkpoints
100 mile inland border checks
Mandatory RFID chips in livestock (on hold for now)
Regulation of ditches for rain runoff as navigable waterways
Declaration of an essential plant nutrient as a pollutant
Spilled milk as a hazardous material since it contains oil (butterfat)

and on and on. . .

Bit by bit, the carve outs that reduce our liberties grow larger and more onerous. Both political sides participate as both benefit from the additional power. The Constitution as approved and envisioned slowly disappears.

Happy Independence Day folks!

[OMNI-worthy rant off]