"Since it was first recognized in [the] Magna Carta, trial by jury has been a prized shield against oppression ...."
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 84 (1942)
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
 -- Roy Broadhurst, Portsmouth UK      
All three of today's quotes are totally appropriate to the Zimmerman trial--no giving in to threats of violence from uncivilized and lawless people, provide justice for the innocent man, and thankfully there is a jury that holds its own against a politically-motivated show trial.
 -- Tom, Los Angeles     
    Roy, UK, how do you really feel. Tom, LA, Your comments are right as much needed rain.
     -- jim k, Austin, Tx     
    Knowledge of the office 'juror' is an almost omnipotent prized shield against oppression. Ignorance of the office 'juror' is a tool in the hand of the oppressor. Knowledge of the office 'juror' includes a working understanding of natural law, justice, rights, and jury nullification - all such will undo despotic compelled compliance (prohibition for example). Ignorance of the office 'juror' has oppressing consequences, for example. I have a close friend who had 2 grand juries turn his case down. The government finally got a case against my friend in court with no grand jury ever hearing the case. That case was based on a statute that had expired (the statute did not exist at the time that my friend was indicted - another statute was submitted half way through the trial) The prosecutor's arguments had nothing to do with either charging statute. Truth or fact had almost nothing to do with the trial. The jury convicted my friend. By way of follow up - the court completely changed its transcripts and other official records concerning that case.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    Mike, there are few in authority we can trust to seek justice rather than conviction. We must have trial by jury as we both agree.
     -- Cal, Lewisville,TX     
    Yes, but if that is true, how is it that a guy like Zimmerman can be acquitted of murder by a jury and yet later be charged with 'hate crime'? I am trying to understand the legal system here. Somehow 'hate crime' is a federal crime different than the crime of murder. And how is this hate to be determined? Is calling someone a 'crazy ass cracker' and then punching him in the nose a 'hate crime'? Isn't murder a hate crime? And if someone is found not guilty of murder, can you then charge them with hating? Hey, hating someone is NOT a crime -- never has been. Crime is crime -- actually causing physical harm is a crime -- mens rea is the determining factor of a 'crime.' Hate by itself is not a crime but is a deciding factor of whether an act is criminal or not. I do hate some of these guys on TV race baiting the country -- so I guess we have to all take this crap or else be charged with hate crimes. Frankly MSNBC and Piers Morgan are hate mongers as far as I can tell, along with Sharpton, the biggest hate criminal on TV today. I hate him -- not because he is black but because he foments racism and profits from it.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    Having lived in several countries where there was no Haebus Corpus, and having my attorney, Baron Dr. Otto Graff Prashma held in the Frankfurt Jail for more than one year WITHOUT ONE CHARGE BEING BROUGHT AGAINST him, made me know how important this law is.

    Obama would eliminate this law, and how many millions would be imprisoned because of this, without any legal recourse. BIGGER BROTHER IS HERE N O W.

    EVERY THING IS TAT STAKE. You better fight now, or forever be a slave to Obama and his minions.

    Dr. Dale Smith
     -- Dr. Dale Smith, Auburn, CA     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?

    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2023 Liberty-Tree.ca