Hour 1
Every year, in late June, the headlines are dominated by Supreme Court decisions that change the law and affect all of us. But there are other Supreme Court decisions that significantly change the law and affect all of us that receive far less publicity.
Over the decades since I became a law professor, the Supreme Court has made it far more difficult for those who are injured, even egregiously and horribly hurt, to have access to the federal courts. In case after case, year after year, the Supreme Court has closed the courthouse doors to those whose rights have been violated.
Preface: Closing the Courthouse Door
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – The four basics
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Rule 56. Summary Judgment
Counterspeech by Dena Sacks
Her guest is Professor Fred Galves.
The programed aired Saturday, April 9, 2022. Her free program archives are here: https://www.revolutionradioarchives.com/
Look under Counterspeech.
Hour 2
Harmless Error: Explained
Years ago, during an appellate argument in the state of Washington, a judge asked a prosecutor why, in light of a rule that prohibits trial prosecutors from asking one witness whether another witness is lying, the prosecutors from his office continued to ask the prohibited question. “It’s always been found to be harmless,” he explained.
When the court published its decision, it rejected any suggestion that courts “wink at intentional and repeated unfair questioning by prosecutors under the rubric of harmless error.” But the court then affirmed the conviction, concluding that the prosecutor was “correct in relying on the doctrine of harmless error.”
https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explainers/harmless-error-explained/
What is “a reasonable doubt”?
“It is for the jury to collectively determine what reasonable doubt is.”
People v. Turman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091019
The jury sent a question to the court asking:
“What is your definition of reasonable doubt, 80%, 70%, or 60%?”
The court responded:
“We cannot give you a definition…it is for you to define…”
People v. Downs, 2014 IL App (2d) 121156
“It’s what each of you individually and collectively, as 12 of you, believe is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Franklin, 2012 IL App (3d) 100618
In 1994, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the jury instructions defining “reasonable doubt” in two state criminal cases violated due process. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994). This decision established that:
“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’ ”
Id. at 5 (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954)).
Why do prosecutors drag their feet getting discovery to the defense, especially when the defendant can not afford bail and is stuck in jail for months on end?
No prosecutor has ever really been properly punished for misconduct.
An ex-Texas prosecutor only had to spend 10 days in jail for withholding evidence that would have stopped an innocent man from spending 25 years in prison. 10 days for an innocent man who spent 25 years in prison? Disgusting joke!!! That prosecutor should have had to spend 25 years day for day in prison for his Brady violation.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-prosecutors-drag-their-feet-getting-discovery-to-the-defense-especially-when-the-defendant-can-not-afford-bail-and-is-stuck-in-jail-for-months-on-end/answer/Will-Crump-4
Whoops! Federal Judge Acquits January 6 Defendant – The Future of Freedom Foundation
Acquitted! As in Not Guilty! As in walking out of the federal courtroom a free man.
Mind you, I’m not referring to a federal jury trial. For some reason, Martin chose to waive a jury trial. In a non-jury trial, the judge serves the same role as a jury. He not only determines the law of the case, he also determines whether the evidence supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
https://www.fff.org/2022/04/08/whoops-federal-judge-acquits-january-6-defendant/
Music Credits
Danheim – Mannavegr (Full Album 2017) Viking Era & Viking War Music
https://youtu.be/8tilKaOINmE
Mason Proffit – Two Hangmen
https://youtu.be/CC3yZdG_2Bc
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved in print and audio content.