Andrew & Sam Updates

21 Comments on Andrew & Sam Updates

jzacker on Mon, 4th May 2009 8:00 pm


---

I hope Andrew looks at the video of his trial. He needs to improve his demeanor if he is going to sway a jury in his favor. He should stop interrupting the judge with “That’s fine!”.

Also, I would recommend not approaching the ridiculousness of marijuana laws so directly, because the judge will just shut him down again.

One approach I might take is the chain-of-custody. In the first trial, the prosecution made a big deal about the chain-of-custody. Andrew should explore that process and he should try to illustrate just how much manpower (time, money,resources) went into confiscating and testing this single leaf. How many man-hours? How much travel (gasoline is pricey)? How much did the tests on the leaf cost? Andrew could show how much taxpayer money was spent on this single leaf. People tend to pay attention to their ‘tax dollars at work’. Also, the judge might be less likely to shut him down if he argues that he is trying to verify the chain-of-custody. This argument is perfectly legal.

My 2 cents.


Scott in Winnipeg on Mon, 4th May 2009 8:39 pm


---

Nice idea with teh cost of the chain of custody. He could ask the questions, which would be relevant in the courts eyes, and make his point.


Curt Springer on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:08 pm


---

I don’t believe that Andrew is entitled to a jury trial. The charge was downgraded to a class B misdemeanor, which means no mandatory jail time. His refusal to pay the fine is his option.

You are only entitled to a jury trial if charged with a class A misdemeanor or a felony.


Paul on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:12 pm


---

I like your suggestion about chain of custody, jzacker. As far as “that’s fine” goes, it’s the equivalent of “without objection” which you may have heard. In other words, often when the prosecutor makes a motion, he has to say that he does not object.

Now, it’s true that he did say it in circumstances where it was not required. It didn’t bother me, I thought he sounded great, but I suppose each person has their own perception.

I am glad he went after the rediculousness of marijuana laws directly. The point was not to win, the point is to educate and illustrate, as was the purpose of the original protest. The judge may shut him down legally, but he got his message out. It is not necessary for the judge to officially recognize an argument for it to have an impact.


Ian on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:14 pm


---

Curt,

The US constitution states one may have a jury trial in any controversy where the amount exceeds $20.

Not that that means he’ll get one.


jzacker on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:37 pm


---

So here’s what the Constitution says:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

just an FYI as to the right to a jury trial.


Ian on Mon, 4th May 2009 10:13 pm


---

So, will they claim this is not common law, so that doesn’t apply?


Curt Springer on Mon, 4th May 2009 10:25 pm


---

From Lawyers.com:

The right to a jury trial is established in the U.S. Constitution, but it is not an absolute right. The Supreme Court has stated that petty crimes (as those carrying a sentence of up to 6 months) do not require trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in a criminal case may be waived by the «express and intelligent consent” of the defendant, usu. in writing, as well as, in federal cases, the approval of the court and consent of the prosecutor. There is no right to a jury trial in equity cases. When a civil case involves both legal and equitable issues or procedure, either party may demand a jury trial (and failure to do so is taken as a waiver), but the judge may find that there is no right to jury trial because of equitable issues or claims.

This is a criminal matter, not a “suit at common law.”


Steven McDuffie on Mon, 4th May 2009 11:06 pm


---

Today I called the First Amendment Center and talked to Dave Hudson about Sam. I told him the whole story, and he seemed very interested. Hopefully something comes from it.


jzacker on Mon, 4th May 2009 11:41 pm


---

So, will they claim this is not common law, so that doesn’t apply?
————————————————–

Well, marijuana laws aren’t common law.


Zeus on Tue, 5th May 2009 4:01 am


---

I thought the best thing Andrew did was get Shane Maxfield to admit that the marijuana was property. Perhaps he could have pushed that a bit further by asking “Was I harming anyone? Was anyone damaged by my alleged possession of the substance?” instead of that stuff about his demeanor and congeniality (which they pretty much dismissed as irrelevant).

I can’t say I’d have been any less nervous but I did find the repetitive use of “That’s fine” distracting and the outbursts of information or opinion (”throwing me in jail”, “not gonna pay”, etc.) to be unhelpful. He’d be better off playing it cool and doing the less is more thing. It’s easier when you know you’re already screwed and aren’t going to win this thing anyway. The best you can do is try to make some valid observations and do so in a calm manner.

That said, I understand that he isn’t familiar with the process and he was frustrated with it because they wouldn’t let him introduce any of his constitutional arguments.

Now he knows better what the true nature of the process is (to establish guilt or innocence in regards to breaking a law and not being allowed to challenge the morality of that law) and those of us watching the trial have learned quite a bit on what works and what doesn’t work thanks to him leading the way.

The better we understand them and what they do, the better we’ll be at challenging them in the future.


Lpviper on Tue, 5th May 2009 8:17 am


---

I’d be scared outta me knickers

Thank You Andrew, for standing up for my rights.

And Sam…wow. Before anyone says anything critical about the man, think to yourself for a moment, ‘Could I stay if I could so easily be freed?’

And then, think about whether you are truly being freed by getting out of the cage.


Curt Springer on Tue, 5th May 2009 8:37 am


---

Here is an explanation of equity vs. common law that you might find interesting and instructive:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equity


Ogre on Tue, 5th May 2009 2:10 pm


---

Don’t you love when the Supreme Court decides that it can change the Constitution on a whim?


Lpviper on Tue, 5th May 2009 3:51 pm


---

No, but they sure are sexxxxy in those black dresses….


charley hardman on Tue, 5th May 2009 10:18 pm


---

what right would andrew rely upon to enslave a panel of jurors via the tyranny of the state?

BTW, constitution stumblers (e.g., ian the law adviser), not the 7th, but the 6th amendment of the US constitution concerns andrew’s case.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Vix on Wed, 6th May 2009 10:05 am


---

“Confused” Where did anyone say anything about the 7th amendment?


Ryan Gubele on Wed, 6th May 2009 7:05 pm


---

I had one suggestion for Andrew:

Impeach the witness! Burke shut down a lot of your questioning because it wasn’t “relevant” to the case. Impeaching the state’s witnesses is always relevant, so you might get a judge to give you more leniency in your questioning if you say you’re doing it to impeach the witness. “What relevance does XXX have?” “Goes to credibility your “honor” — if officer Dumbass is so stupid as to not know X, we certainly have reason to question his ability to follow policies Y and Z…”


charley hardman on Wed, 6th May 2009 11:11 pm


---

“Confused” Where did anyone say anything about the 7th amendment?

funny.


Lpviper on Wed, 6th May 2009 11:30 pm


---

Amendment 7:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I think Ian was trying to say that if the court wished to indemnify Andrew in the amount of 420 dollars, then they would need to empanel a jury to legitimately do so. Is that right?


Vix on Thu, 7th May 2009 7:16 am


---

TY Lpviper!

That makes sense to me, but the courts never seem to follow any real form of logic that I can tell.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!