Wife's guns: Bremerton man fighting firearms charge on principle

[tionico]

I'll say it again, the jury can acquit on the basis that the law, as being applied, is unfair, unjust, or whatever, in spite of the facts proving guilt. The jury is to apply principles of justice.

And as to who is being an idiot, it is surely NOT the victim of overzealous cops and prosecutors bent on punishing an upright citizen. If anything, it is the prosecutor for failing to move for dismissal in the interests of justice. It falls to the sheriff of any county to enforce the law justly, and, from what we have available at this point, this whole case does NOT serve justice. Not to the victim of an overzealous enforcer, not to the man's wife, and not to the citizens of Kitsam County and Washington State. I've watched for many years as Kitsap County have gone to the far-liberal uptight California thinking. Used to be a great place to live, but I'd never move there now... and I desparately want out of the county I am now in. This case is a travesty of justice, never mind the letter of the law. This man is NOT a criminal, and should be released and acquitted, fully, and immediately, and have ALL his rights restored, including that to arms, and of voting.

By the bye, if his HAS been registered to vote and has actually voted, that would be a stronly extenuating fact that any jury should find as grounds to acquit. If a man can vote, he can bear arms, for it is the same section of the contsitution that provides for the forfeiture of BOTH of these laws in the case of felons.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'll say it again, the jury can acquit on the basis that the law, as being applied, is unfair, unjust, or whatever, in spite of the facts proving guilt. The jury is to apply principles of justice.

And as to who is being an idiot, it is surely NOT the victim of overzealous cops and prosecutors bent on punishing an upright citizen. If anything, it is the prosecutor for failing to move for dismissal in the interests of justice. It falls to the sheriff of any county to enforce the law justly, and, from what we have available at this point, this whole case does NOT serve justice. Not to the victim of an overzealous enforcer, not to the man's wife, and not to the citizens of Kitsam County and Washington State. I've watched for many years as Kitsap County have gone to the far-liberal uptight California thinking. Used to be a great place to live, but I'd never move there now... and I desparately want out of the county I am now in. This case is a travesty of justice, never mind the letter of the law. This man is NOT a criminal, and should be released and acquitted, fully, and immediately, and have ALL his rights restored, including that to arms, and of voting.

By the bye, if his HAS been registered to vote and has actually voted, that would be a stronly extenuating fact that any jury should find as grounds to acquit. If a man can vote, he can bear arms, for it is the same section of the contsitution that provides for the forfeiture of BOTH of these laws in the case of felons.

The jury can not rule on matters of law, especially not whether something is constitutional. Only the court (the judge) can rule on that.

If at the end of presentation of arguments, the facts under the law are not in dispute, (both sides agree that he's a felon and that he was living in a residence with guns) there is no need for a fact finder (a jury.) A motion will be made that under the law the facts are not in dispute as to whether the man was a felon in possession. The judge will sustain the motion and it will not go to the jury.

I'm experiencing you as wanting things to be as you wish they were ("fair") instead of looking at the stark reality of what's there. If I read the article correctly, the guy has already admitted guilt and plans to admit guilt as the law is written. That will doom him and remove the need for a jury to decide whether the facts show that he is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." When he admits guilt under the law to the court there is no longer any doubt or dispute under the law.

It is not up to the defendant or the judge or the jury to decide if the law is "fair." That's a matter for legislative and regulatory bodies. It is up to the judge to decide what the law is, and if it is constitutional. It is up to the jury to decide guilt based on the facts, but only if the facts are in dispute.

If the guy denied that he was a felon OR that he was living in a house with guns, then a jury would have to deliberate that and decide whether he was guilty of that, based on the evidence presented at trial. THAT'S where a rogue jury could decide to find him not guilty. If the jury did find him not guilty, he's free because you can't be tried twice in criminal court for the same offense.

If that article is correct, this is not going to a jury because the relevant facts under the law are not in dispute.

 

[pistolero57]

The jury can not rule on matters of law, especially not whether something is constitutional. Only the court (the judge) can rule on that.

If at the end of presentation of arguments, the facts under the law are not in dispute, (both sides agree that he's a felon and that he was living in a residence with guns) there is no need for a fact finder (a jury.) A motion will be made that under the law the facts are not in dispute as to whether the man was a felon in possession. The judge will sustain the motion and it will not go to the jury.

I'm experiencing you as wanting things to be as you wish they were ("fair") instead of looking at the stark reality of what's there. If I read the article correctly, the guy has already admitted guilt and plans to admit guilt as the law is written. That will doom him and remove the need for a jury to decide whether the facts show that he is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." When he admits guilt under the law to the court there is no longer any doubt or dispute under the law.

It is not up to the defendant or the judge or the jury to decide if the law is "fair." That's a matter for legislative and regulatory bodies. It is up to the judge to decide what the law is, and if it is constitutional. It is up to the jury to decide guilt based on the facts, but only if the facts are in dispute.

If the guy denied that he was a felon OR that he was living in a house with guns, then a jury would have to deliberate that and decide whether he was guilty of that, based on the evidence presented at trial. THAT'S where a rogue jury could decide to find him not guilty. If the jury did find him not guilty, he's free because you can't be tried twice in criminal court for the same offense.

If that article is correct, this is not going to a jury because the relevant facts under the law are not in dispute.

This is one of the most MISunderstood points of the law. You stated:

It is not up to the defendant or the judge or the jury to decide if the law is "fair." That's a matter for legislative and regulatory bodies. It is up to the judge to decide what the law is, and if it is constitutional. It is up to the jury to decide guilt based on the facts, but only if the facts are in dispute.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Have you ever heard of jury nullification? The jury has the right, and the power, to nullify an existing law if it so chooses. Judges do this all the time. It's called "case law." Unfortunately most people have never heard this and juries allow themselves to be bullied into doing what the judge instructs them to do. (If it were anybody else besides the judge this would be called "jury tampering," a felony.) The jury can tell the judge to sit on it if they want to.

 

[nhuman]

Threadjack, Can A felon Visit Or spend the night in a home that has un-secured firearms?

 

[Gunner3456]

This is one of the most MISunderstood points of the law. You stated:

It is not up to the defendant or the judge or the jury to decide if the law is "fair." That's a matter for legislative and regulatory bodies. It is up to the judge to decide what the law is, and if it is constitutional. It is up to the jury to decide guilt based on the facts, but only if the facts are in dispute.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Have you ever heard of jury nullification? The jury has the right, and the power, to nullify an existing law if it so chooses. Judges do this all the time. It's called "case law." Unfortunately most people have never heard this and juries allow themselves to be bullied into doing what the judge instructs them to do. (If it were anybody else besides the judge this would be called "jury tampering," a felony.) The jury can tell the judge to sit on it if they want to.

You are exactly right.

IF it gets to the jury.

I said that if it gets to a jury, "THAT'S where a rogue jury could decide to find him not guilty. If the jury did find him not guilty, he's free because you can't be tried twice in criminal court for the same offense."

The point I keep making is that when each side rests its case (or even before upon motion) the judge can rule that the facts aren't in dispute. The judge can rule that both sides agree the man is a felon living in a home with guns, and that this is prima facie "felon in possession" because the judge is allowed to rule on what the law is.

If the judge rules during the trial, even after closing arguments, that the facts aren't in dispute, then there is no call for the "finder of fact" - the jury. The jury is there ONLY to rule on what facts the evidence proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the case of criminal trials.

And yes, the jury can ignore jury instructions and even thumb their noses at the judge and the law IF they get the case.

If the facts of the man being a felon and living in a home with guns are agreed to by the defendant during the trial, the jury will be sent home. Now, The LAW says he's guilty and that's the judge's domain.

Rulings on the Law = judge. Rulings on what actually happened as shown by evidence if in dispute (Facts) = jury.

 

[Gunner3456]

Threadjack, Can A felon Visit Or spend the night in a home that has un-secured firearms?

It would depend. "Possession" requires "dominion and control." You're in a gray area. This would definitely require a jury to decide if the visitor had "dominion and control" of the weapons - possession. This would be a classic "finding of fact" which under law only a jury can do.

How often does he visit? Is it proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he knows they are there so that he in fact has control of them?

NOW we need a jury because he could deny he knew they were there, or make some other "dominion and control" argument and only a jury could tell, under those particular circumstances, what the facts are.

The felon has one thing going for him here. The standard of proof in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a very high standard of proof.

(In civil trials it's just "more likely than not" called "the preponderance of the evidence." This is how O.J. won his criminal trial but lost his civil trial.)

 

[Wheeler44]

I wonder if the genius that inspired all of this gnashing of teeth and wrenting of garments knew that breaking into a high school was illegal? Or if he knew that the highly explosive compound was probably slash fuel, a 2:1 mixture of diesel and gasoline...

I won't weigh in on whom should and shouldn't have firearms and which laws should or shouldn't be felonies...

But if this fella thinks that handling slash fuel for the forest circus somehow magically erases the fact the he is a convicted felon.....

Consider all that he went through getting to jail..
and while in jail...
and while being released from jail...
and being on probation...
and being released from probation...
and all of the time since being in jail...

and this genius never had even the slightest inkling that he shouldn't be around firearms without doing a little paperwork first...

Maybe he should do some time ...........It's for the children...

 

[ZachS]

You are exactly right.

IF it gets to the jury.

I said that if it gets to a jury, "THAT'S where a rogue jury could decide to find him not guilty. If the jury did find him not guilty, he's free because you can't be tried twice in criminal court for the same offense."

The point I keep making is that when each side rests its case (or even before upon motion) the judge can rule that the facts aren't in dispute. The judge can rule that both sides agree the man is a felon living in a home with guns, and that this is prima facie "felon in possession" because the judge is allowed to rule on what the law is.

If the judge rules during the trial, even after closing arguments, that the facts aren't in dispute, then there is no call for the "finder of fact" - the jury. The jury is there ONLY to rule on what facts the evidence proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the case of criminal trials.

And yes, the jury can ignore jury instructions and even thumb their noses at the judge and the law IF they get the case.

If the facts of the man being a felon and living in a home with guns are agreed to by the defendant during the trial, the jury will be sent home. Now, The LAW says he's guilty and that's the judge's domain.

Rulings on the Law = judge. Rulings on what actually happened as shown by evidence if in dispute (Facts) = jury.

Right, but in a criminal trial rulings on the law are only relevant insofar as evidence and jury instructions are concerned. A judge can acquit for legal reasons, but cannot convict. In a criminal jury trial, only a jury can convict the defendant.

Everything you're saying is basically valid in civil cases, where judges can make a decision in favor of either party as a matter of law.

 

[Gunner3456]

Right, but in a criminal trial rulings on the law are only relevant insofar as evidence and jury instructions are concerned. A judge can acquit for legal reasons, but cannot convict. In a criminal jury trial, only a jury can convict the defendant.

Everything you're saying is basically valid in civil cases, where judges can make a decision in favor of either party as a matter of law.

Of course you are correct, but a judge can accept a guilty plea, which is what I'm calling it.

If during the trial the defendant stands before the court and pleads guilty there is no need to send it to the jury. He is now pleading guilty in public and declaring that he intends to plead guilty at trial, although he doesn't seem to realize it.

You can plead guilty at trial and not get a jury. The judge will ask him with specificity how he pleads to the charges under the law. If he mouths off in court saying what he's saying in the press, he'll give an answer which is (under the law) "guilty."

A defendant may choose to plead guilty at any time during the trial.

I keep stating that if he says in court what he's saying in the press, he will be pleading guilty - facts under the law not in dispute.

This is one of the strangest criminal cases I've seen. It seems as if the defendant wants to make a civil argument in a criminal matter. I still can't believe he is represented by counsel and still making these statements.

 

[ZachS]

Of course you are correct, but a judge can accept a guilty plea, which is what I'm calling it.

If during the trial the defendant stands before the court and pleads guilty there is no need to send it to the jury. He is now pleading guilty in public and declaring that he intends to plead guilty at trial, although he doesn't seem to realize it.

You can plead guilty at trial and not get a jury. The judge will ask him with specificity how he pleads to the charges under the law. If he mouths off in court saying what he's saying in the press, he'll give an answer which is (under the law) "guilty."

I keep stating that if he says in court what he's saying in the press, he will be pleading guilty - facts not in dispute.

This is one of the strangest criminal cases I've seen. It seems as if the defendant wants to make a civil argument in a criminal matter. I still can't believe he is represented by counsel and still making these statements.

Your first statements are totally incorrect. Even a confession in open court is not the same thing as a guilty plea. Whether or not there are any facts in dispute, a defendant in a jury trial cannot be convicted by anybody but a jury. This right is guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution.



Your last statement is spot on. Even if his strategy was good, which it isn't, his chances of success would be greater if he kept quiet and let an attorney handle everything.

 

[tionico]

there remain some issues of "fact" to be determined.

Why was he not restored his rights to vote and to arms after he served his time? Of HAS he been voting? The jury could easily find that putting the onus on HIM to "do the paperwork" when he thought it was all done is wrong... thus setting a precedent for future cases. How many votes were discarded in Queen Christine's first "election" because they were from felons who had NOT done their paperwork, but could have done, to have their right to vote restored.... this was a serious issue at the time, our legislature actually considering changing the law to automatically restore one's forfeited rights once he's paid his debts. As said earlier, voting and the right to arms travel together, in most cases.

Also in the balance is in his "control and dominion" status. His wife could make a solid case for her OWN right to arms not being infringed on the simple status of her husband's previous conviction, and/or that she, and she alone, had access to the weapons. Thus, the "dominion and control" issue may turn the other way.

And yes, in criminal cases, the jury (or the judge) can, and do, certainly nullify existing law, either enacted or in form of case law. Consider the Supreme Court's recent decisions, such as Roe vs Wade, Kelo, Lawrence... ALL of them, in essence, legislating from the bench. Juries also have the power to determine a given law does NOT bear on a given case.. called nulification. And they can do so on whatever basis THEY choose. Even a simple "its not fair", or "give THIS man the benefit of the doubt, acquit him". Or. looking at the intent of the law as written, to keep arms from being accessed by those disposed to violence or harm upon others, or mentally unstable to the point they are not to be trusted, the jury could find that this man does NOT fit the category, despite the fact of his prior history and the clear fact he COULD HAVE petitioned the court to have his rights restored at some time prior to the breakin and discovery of the inconvenient articles found upon the cops' investigation of someone else's crime. The mere fact that such arms were, in fact, in the home since his marriage and he had never used them could well be used to mitigate in his favour.


I hope this guy can connect with a skilled attorney well versed in firearms law, and that he will be able to present enough evidence to cast doubt on his guilt, and/or the "justice" of his being convicted and imprisoned. This case has the makings of a landmark decision, affecting future practice in this state regarding restoration of one's rights, and interpretation of "possession". We nearly had a legislative "fix" on the rights restoration of felons procedure after that bogus election. Perhaps this one will result in a judicial fix by establishing the precedent that, in such cases, part of his being discharged from the criminal justice system upon completion of his requirements inlcludes, through no initiation on his part, the restoration of ALL his losts rights along with his physical freedom. Some states, in fact, have already made this change, a precedent that might serve useful in persuading the jury on the justice of this matter.

I still maintain the cops and prosecuting attorney are way out of line on this one. The prosecutor, if he were truly after justice, could move before the court of earlier conviction to restore his rights, retroactively to prior to his marriage. In fact, if he gets a decent judge, HE could make such an order, either upon his own initiative or upon motion of counsel. This whole bit of nonsense is utterly counter to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution regardint the forfeiture, and restoration, of one's rights to liberty, voting, and arms. And yes, both the judge and the jury can, and should, consider this issue.

Justice is not cast into stone. Consider how the man who murdered the four officers in Lakewood was released on parole...... after prior convictions of serious violence against persons, multiple times. They considered that "justice" at the time, and now we've got four dead officers and four grieving families. Strange contrast here...... the only part of "justice" in that case is the fact that the perpetrator/murderer was killed two days later as he attempted to shoot yet one more officer.

 

[Gunner3456]

Your first statements are totally incorrect. Even a confession in open court is not the same thing as a guilty plea. Whether or not there are any facts in dispute, a defendant in a jury trial cannot be convicted by anybody but a jury. This right is guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Are you saying that a defendant, realizing that the facts regarding the law are not in dispute, cannot change by motion his plea both during the trial and after closing arguments? Are you saying that a judge cannot accept that? Are you saying that if that happens, that the jury is still needed and that the balance of issues are not in the hands of the judge?

I don't think you're saying that and I think we are swimming in semantics.

I believe that if he's represented by counsel by some chance, that his attorney will spend most of his time trying to get the guy to renegotiate that deal and plead out.

I am making the point the this cowboy doesn't seem to be represented by counsel and I'm betting he thinks he can argue irrelevant and immaterial issues such as handling fire starter for the forest service, LOL.

I'm also betting that if he is pro se he will fall on his face at arraignment. I picture the judge reading the charges with specificity and asking him how he pleads. I see him saying something like "Well yes I'm a felon and yes I live in a house where I have control of guns but, but, but, irrelevant, immaterial, etc. etc." The judge will keep pushing him until he chooses a plea. He'll want to argue with the judge. If he doesn't eventually choose a plea, I see the judge choosing it for him, and probably "not guilty."

I see him sinking deeper and deeper during trial and realizing that the facts under the law are not in dispute and that his arguments aren't admissible and I see him asking the court (making a motion) to end the trial by changing his plea. If that happens, I believe that the rest is up to the judge.

Your last statement is spot on. Even if his strategy was good, which it isn't, his chances of success would be greater if he kept quiet and let an attorney handle everything.

You are so right. IMHO even attorneys shouldn't represent themselves in serious matters.

$.02

 

[ZachS]

You are so right. IMHO even attorneys shouldn't represent themselves in serious matters.

$.02

Merely stipulating to certain facts is not a guilty plea. A defendant would have to specifically request to change his plea. This is a basic fact of criminal procedure and I'm not going to argue about it with you any more.

As far as criminal and civil litigation are concerned, attorneys, generally, should not (and do not) represent themselves even in simple matters - fortunately, it's easy for them to find good representation ....

 

[Gunner3456]

Merely stipulating to certain facts is not a guilty plea. A defendant would have to specifically request to change his plea. This is a basic fact of criminal procedure and I'm not going to argue about it with you any more.

As far as criminal and civil litigation are concerned, attorneys, generally, should not (and do not) represent themselves even in simple matters - fortunately, it's easy for them to find good representation ....

I didn't say "stipulating to certain facts was a guilty plea." I said he could, by motion, any time during the trial, CHANGE his plea thereby turning the trial back to the judge and away from the jury. The jury could go home.

Since you're not willing to actually read what I said or to "argue about it any more," and would prefer to dismiss me, I'll tell you what I told the last so-called legal beagle who showed up here.

At trial, attorneys are wrong 50% of the time, a failing grade anywhere I've ever been! 50% are losers since only one side can win! They are flat out wrong 50% of the time!!!

An attorney's opinion has just a 50% chance of being correct, and so does his strategy!

I'm glad they aren't the pilots on the aircraft when I need to travel.

 

[Weathermaker]

The thing that really bothers me about this whole affair is: Someone breaks into my house. I call the police. They respond. Then...run a criminal check on me. WTF. I'm the one who called them. It was my house that was broken into to. Why are they, the police, running a criminal check on me.

I'm glad I'm the age I am....so I don't have too many more years to put up with this kind of Governmental B.S.

:nuts:

 

[wichaka]

Have found many a reporting party with valid arrest warrants, so the criminal check is not uncommon.

Just uncommon to folks who haven't been in the profession.

 

[zeezee]

You know I really am beginning to hate our judicial system, or should I say our government in it's entirety!

 

[Gunner3456]

You know I really am beginning to hate our judicial system, or should I say our government in it's entirety!

I can sure agree with that. It's corrupt in the sense that judges too often rule on personal prejudice instead of on the law. It's getting to where way too many of them have to be appealed. Then the appellate courts can do the same.

Everyone knows that there is a narrow political split in the US Supreme Court, and that decisions are often 5/4 or 4/5. What? If they can read the law, and rule on the law as written, then the decisions should be mostly unanimous. The decisions would be too except for personal prejudice about the way the law "should be" instead of the way it is.

 

[shibbershabber]

You know I really am beginning to hate our judicial system, or should I say our government in it's entirety!

There's nothing new under the sun...

You mean to say that you are becoming more aware of our judicial system.
This kind of stuff didnt just appear over night.


Something else to look at here, for those who dont like this situation, or think that the judicial system is on the wrong track... Ask yourself, "How do I vote?"

The people that you put in office, the ballot measures you support, the myriad of "victims rights" legislation over the years, So-called "tough-on-crime" laws championed by the same pundits & politicians we look to for pro2A support, etc.
How does all of that reconcile with your personal views of the legal system?

 

[Stomper]

Any nation with a democratically elected system ultimately gets what it deserves....