Full Version: Eight Amendment Violated?
Emphases added:
Emphases added:
Topic: Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated?
Edited to add: Jaime, Opps! Sorry about that.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Apr 30 2005, 02:32 PM)
I found this:
Which created more questions then answers for me.
QUOTE
Bursey told the World that five months after his 2002 arrest, the state dropped all charges against him. But U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. had him arrested under a rarely used statute titled Presidential Assassinations, Kidnappings, and Threats. He was denied a jury trial, denied access to evidence, and had subpoenas quashed in a trial modeled on Attorney General John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act.
Bursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
sourceBursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
Which created more questions then answers for me.
Emphases added:
QUOTE(Sixth Amendment)
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.
Topic: Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated?
Edited to add: Jaime, Opps! Sorry about that.
CLOSED per crash's request - so he can refocus the question.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ Apr 30 2005, 03:04 PM)
Emphases added:
Emphases added:
Topic: Was the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution violated?
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Apr 30 2005, 02:32 PM)
I found this:
Which created more questions then answers for me.
QUOTE
Bursey told the World that five months after his 2002 arrest, the state dropped all charges against him. But U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. had him arrested under a rarely used statute titled Presidential Assassinations, Kidnappings, and Threats. He was denied a jury trial, denied access to evidence, and had subpoenas quashed in a trial modeled on Attorney General John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act.
Bursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
sourceBursey had been facing a six-month prison sentence, a $5,000 fine and five years of probation. The judge limited the penalty to $500. Bursey said any penalty is unacceptable. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights is handling his appeal.
Which created more questions then answers for me.
Emphases added:
QUOTE(Eighth Amendment)
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.
Topic: Was the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution violated?
With regards to the jury issue, the short answer is "no, it wasn't." According to federal law, the right for trial by jury is required only for offenses where the maximum possible penalty exceeds 6 months incarceration. Here the penalty max appears to be 6 months exactly, so this would have been legal. And this has been true well before the existance of the Patriot Act.
With regards to the access to evidence issue, this is trickier and we would need to have more information than what is in the article. In order for there to be a access to evidence violation under the law, the evidence must have been all of the following: (1) exculpatory, (2) withheld by the government, and (3) material. It's the "material" part we don't know more about in this case.
With regards to the subpoena issue, I'm unsure of what the article is saying. Who were these subpoenas for? Potential witnesses for the defendant? If so, these are quashed through a motion to the court, usually by the witness or his lawyer. I don't see anything fishy here from the facts in the article. Again, we would need more information.
So in sum, I don't see an 8th Amendment violation in the facts presented.
crashforit - you have me a bit confused here. You are asking if the 8th amendment was violated, but you cited the 6th amendment. (The 8th has to do with cruel and unusual punishment).
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
QUOTE
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.
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
QUOTE(Jaime @ Apr 30 2005, 05:27 PM)
crashforit - you have me a bit confused here. You are asking if the 8th amendment was violated, but you cited the 6th amendment. (The 8th has to do with cruel and unusual punishment).
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
QUOTE
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.
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
Bursey refused to go to a 'free speech' zone, away from the media and Bush supporters.
He was arrested in Columbia SC, protesting the Vietnam War, and won his case. The last thing they wanted to do was give him a chance to win another one. Both the GOP and the DNC last year caged and herded protestors out of sight of the media.
That is, as far as I have read on this topic, the only reason his rights were violated.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Apr 30 2005, 05:27 PM)
crashforit - you have me a bit confused here. You are asking if the 8th amendment was violated, but you cited the 6th amendment. (The 8th has to do with cruel and unusual punishment).
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
Goldblum would you please cite this federal law to which you referred and explain how it supersedes the 6th amendment?
As crash sort of stated, the 6th amendment provides:
QUOTE
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.
The emphasis is mine. If this is criminal prosecution, which it appears to be, then yes, his 6th amendment rights were violated. I gotta say, though, I feel like there is more to this story that we don't have yet. Does anyone know the government's rationale behind this federal prosecution?
Here is the statute: 26 A.L.R. Fed. 736
and the relevant part:
"Article 3 § 2, clause 3, of the Federal Constitution requires that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. Although the United States Supreme Court has held, on the basis of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Sixth Amendment guaranty of the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions is applicable to the state courts as well as to the federal courts, nevertheless the Supreme Court has also long recognized the existence of a category of "petty" offenses or crimes to which the constitutional guaranty of jury trial does not apply, and has, moreover, expressly held, in the leading case of Duncan v Louisiana (1968) 391 US 145, 20 L Ed 491, 88 S Ct 1444, 45 Ohio Ops 2d 198, reh den 392 US 947, 20 L Ed 1412, 88 S Ct 2270, that the Federal Constitution does not require a jury trial with respect to crimes carrying possible penalties of up to 6 months if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses."
Was the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution violated?
Even after reading an article by Bursey himself, it is unclear whether his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Prosecuted for Politics, Not Security -- Brett Bursey
It is clear that he has a case for appeal, which he is taking advantage of. Obviously, if the sentence was 6 months or less, he had not right to a trial by jury. I can't seem to find the statute referred to, so it is, again, difficult to say.
On a side note, he's got an excellent 14th Amendment case.
Even after reading an article by Bursey himself, it is unclear whether his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Prosecuted for Politics, Not Security -- Brett Bursey
It is clear that he has a case for appeal, which he is taking advantage of. Obviously, if the sentence was 6 months or less, he had not right to a trial by jury. I can't seem to find the statute referred to, so it is, again, difficult to say.
On a side note, he's got an excellent 14th Amendment case.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.