Apr 8

final-jur-e headline

Unobjected-to Limitations on Trial Observers During the Pandemic Is Not Structural Error

In Pulcinski v. State, the defendant was convicted of murder.  On appeal he argued for the first time the trial judge’s requirement the public observe the trial from a separate room outside the trial courtroom was a violation of his public trial rights.  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that utilizing the pandemic-related procedure was not structural error seriously affecting “the integrity or public reputation of the proceedings.”

Bitcoiner Promotes Jury Nullification to Colleagues

An op-ed piece written by Colin Crossman appears in both Bitcoin Magazine and Nasdaq online.  He argues:

With everything going on in the world today, it seems likely that state-level attacks on Bitcoiners will continue to increase. Furthermore, as Bitcoin puts pressure on traditional power structures, the authorities will almost certainly extend or enact unconscionable laws to restrict, tax or otherwise frustrate the free flow of bitcoin capital.  Eventually, a Bitcoiner is likely to find themselves on a jury and asked to sit in judgment of another Bitcoiner charged with violating one of these unjust laws. It is my contention that all Bitcoiners need to at least have heard about jury nullification in advance as part of their toolkit to help resist, at the last possible moment, laws and state actions which most Bitcoiners would believe to be unethical.

$14 Million Verdict for Denver Protesters Might Cause More Settlements Elsewhere

Associated Press journalist Colleen Slevin argues in The Daily Citizen in Arizona: “A federal jury's $14 million award to Denver protesters hit with pepper balls and a bag filled with lead during 2020 demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis could resonate nationwide as courts weigh more than two dozen similar lawsuits.”

Oklahoma Considers Modifying Procedures for Jury Trials in Termination of Parental Rights Cases

Identical bills have been introduced in the House and Senate that would modify procedures for demanding a jury trial in TPR cases.  House Bill 3190 provides, “The demand for jury trial shall be in writing and filed with the court no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the initial hearing for termination of parental rights. If no demand for jury trial is filed within thirty (30) days, the right to trial by jury is waived by the parent, and the initial hearing for termination of parental rights or any continued hearing for termination of parental rights may proceed as a bench trial.”

“Calling All Citizens to Civil Grand Jury Duty...”

The Santa Monica Daily Press reports the California Grand Jurors’ Association (CGJA) issued its annual call for citizens to apply to be on civil juries that watchdog local government in 2022-2023.  Lou Panetta, CGJA president, is quoted:  “If you apply and are selected as a civil grand juror, you have an opportunity to make an important difference within your community by helping your county, cities, schools, and special districts be more efficient. You’ll also learn more about local government operations and get a chance to build long-lasting friendships with your fellow jurors.”  To learn more about California’s one-of-a-kind civil grand jury system, simply download the 4th edition of “California Civil Grand Juries: History, Law and How they Operate.”